AFF's Doublethink

One of the things I’ve been interested in during the recent Ed Whelan/publius spat is the notion that Ed Whelan did something unethical by unmasking publius. In his roundup of critical posts, for example, Andrew emphasized the Ethics in “Ethics and Public Policy Center.” Over at the League, Mark says that E.D. emailed “And dammit but if you’re going to be unethical it at least ought to make some sense, right?” (Emp. mine.) I’m curious: Why is what Ed Whelan did unethical? What obligation does he have to protect someone else’s anonymity, especially when this anonymous person is routinely attacking him as a “legal hit man” and using other personally and professionally disparaging terms? You can argue that it’s an unnecessary, dickish move (and it does seem to be an unnecessary, dickish move on Whelan’s part), but there are plenty of dickish moves perpetrated every day on the Internet that aren’t “unethical.”

Let’s be clear: This isn’t a foreign dissident who risks execution if the regime in power finds him out, or a whistleblower leaking damaging information about the company for which he works and opening himself up to legal liability. Exposing someone like that in a fit of pique would arguably be “unethical,” especially if he suffered for the exposure. But publius is a law professor blogging about the law at a widely-read, respected website. If he doesn’t feel comfortable putting his name next to his work, then he probably shouldn’t be putting it out there at all.

I guess I’m just not too enamored with the idea of anonyblogging/psuedabloggying since I’m someone who puts his name next to every idiotic thing that comes out of his keyboard, both in print and on the web. In part, I’m lucky: I’ve had jobs where that sort of thing was always tolerated. But I also never would have started a blog, anonymous or otherwise, if it was going to cost me my job. I value my salary far more than the ability to spout off on whatever random thought crosses my mind. If you were to blog without approval from your superiors/say something that would embarrass your superiors and then got fired, well … you roll the dice, you take your chances, you know?

Now, if Whelan was an anonyblogger who demanded his own anonymity while outing publius, I guess I could see the problem. But why are the people who put their name on their work required to observe the privacy of those who wish to stay behind pseudonyms? I’m honestly curious.