By now, you’ve likely heard that National Review personality Ed Whelan outed Obsidian Wings’ Publius over the weekend. The rationale that Whelan cited for the outing was that Publius’ posts were “irresponsible”, “irresponsible” apparently being an Old English word meaning “me no likey”.
What ended up happening was that Whelan wrote an admittedly sloppy post, was smacked down (gently) by Eugene Volokh, and Publius commented on it, echoing another blogger’s comment that Whelan was a judicial hitman. I do take issue with that characterization of Whelan, as “hitman” implies a level of finesse, savvy and composure that Whelan has rarely, if ever, displayed; I would be more inclined to describe him as a raving asshole who would call Jesus Christ a pedophile to salvage Robert Bork’s reputation. Alas, reasonable people can disagree.
Anyway, Publius’ posts became a source of ire to Whelan, because Whelan is a conservative columnist and the thing you apparently do to prove your mettle as a conservative columnist is wildly overreact any time anyone criticizes you, because each and every person who disagrees with you could either be al-Qaeda, seeking to find the last chink in the armor of American manliness, or a billionaire who’s evaluating your intestinal fortitude before he gives you his fortune and his wisecracking manservant.
As Whelan has come under fire, he has again and again tried to justify why he outed Publius. The main rationale seems to be that Publius violated Ed Whelan’s sense of Ed Whelan being fucking awesome; as such, Ed Whelan violated Publius’ privacy. It’s pretty much the same thing, all told. I mean, someone on the internet saying that you’re wrong is directly equivalent to someone on the internet revealing your name and place of employment because they lack the ability to properly teabag you.
What leapt out at me the most was this:
A blogger may choose to blog under a pseudonym for any of various self-serving reasons, from the compelling (e.g., genuine concerns about personal safety) to the respectable to the base. But setting aside the extraordinary circumstances in which the reason to use a pseudonym would be compelling, I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision.