sounds like very grown-up responses all around, finally.

Very good and, as just bill said, grown-up.

Look to see the whole issue revived thusly: a major astroturf campaign is rolled out by a large pharmaceutical corporation or the health care industry using "bloggers" under pseudonyms like "Harry and Louise." These are exposed as actual employees of the companies and policies they are commenting on so favorably. In fact, they are VPs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to pose as poor citizen consumers and every word they write is fake. An inquiring blogger at Kos exposes them. Now the right wing and Whelan turn around and demand a blog swarm of criticism because their "pseudonymity" has been stripped and they have been put in danger.

This is exactly what we saw with the language of civil rights and tolerance as a liberal virtue--hell, its what they did by digging up martin luther king's corpse and retroactively making him a republican spokesman.

We are going to live to regret the day we didn't make the point that publius's pseudonymity specifically gave him the right to say sometimes unpopular things at no pay.

aimai

Its actually very refreshing to hear an apology that isn't just saying "I'm sorry that you're offended". Kudos to him for that.

I can certainly see why Publius is willing to put this behind him; from his point of view it's best to just let it slide.

But for the rest of the blogosphere, not so fast.

Ed Whelen's behavior is unacceptable in the extreme, and justice must be done. So that in future it is clear to all that such behavior won't be tolerated. Otherwise, there'll just be a string of more "Ed Whelens", with no accoutability.

Now, "Ed Whelen" isn't a pseudonym, as far as we know, so he can't be outed quite the same way that he outed Publius.

BUT, how about if there's some other aspect of Ed's life that he's concealing from the world? Well, that's a trickier issue, isn't it?

aimai - I don't think Harry and Louise would have worked as bloggers, since they would have been challenged by commenters and other bloggers. The advantage they had on TV is that no one challenged their concerns. Meanwhile there are plenty of PAC's running commercials, whose sponsorships could easily be exposed, but instead are portrayed as "Citizens for a Beautiful World" or whatever they choose to call themselves.

Kudos to both Whelan and Publius.

I don't buy it. Publius still has to deal with any personal or professional ramifications of his outing and Ed Whelan is given a slap on the back for his "courage" to apologize. Screw him.

I would be surprised if Publius faces any personal or professional ramifications. This isn't 2004 and the Republican Party and it's thuggish goons are in eclipse. After Whelan's initial childish act it is refreshing to see very adult behavior from both.

Let's get back to debating issues.

Oh, that Ed, first he flies off the handle, as AL and others pointed out and then he calmed down, thought about it and apologized. While the latter is adult behavior, one (me, actually) wonders which of Ed's personae took part in OLC discussions of the Gitmo detainees?
If I had to guess, go ahead dare me, I think it was the former behavior, the one easily roused to stupid behavior rather than the one which reflects on the outcome.
Even if only half of him is an ass, his actions in this case are untoward. Publius should have threatened him with a lawsuit, which seems to be another SOP with the dear Ed. Yeah, let's move on until he does it again which, of course, he will.

Too often, in recent times, have we seek individuals and groups commit wrongful, hurtful acts, only to offer an apology, not as a meaningful attempt to repair the damage so much as the means to thwart the direct countermeasure that logically follows the commission of the act.

Mr. Whelan, through a series of quasi-nonsensical articles that promoted little more than his neanderthal-ish membership in the Rush Limbaugh He-Man-Woman-Haters' White Peoples' Party, declared a one-man jihad on the Sotomayor nomination. He received a series of justifiable push-backs, and retaliated against those push-backs by outing someone (publius) who did nothing more than to illuminate those push-backs.

The "uncharitable conduct" fomented against a single blogger, in this instance, represents an overt act of uncharitable conduct against not only pseudonymous blogging, but against all who disagree with Mr. Whelan's actions.

As such, it is important to note that I am under no obligation to accept the validity of this, or any future apology, other than to see Mr. Whelan dismissed from his position at NR. Anything less is akin to a neighbor trashing my yard, ripping out my shrubbery, and spray-painting obscenities on my house---only to demand that I have to forgive him, on the measly grounds that he has professed an apology for his actions.

Neville Chamberlain I am not....

Whelan's apology will stop or slow down the discussion of his outrageous conduct.

It won't repair the fatal damage done to his credibility or reputation. That bell, like the announcement of Publius' identity, can't be unrung.

shortstop - You beat me too it. Well said. The apology, while no doubt sincere, was likely EW's attempt to undo the damage. His days as a blogger are over. If a tree falls in the forest . . . . Ed who?

good to see a turnip like whelan sidling over a skosh from the center of the universe...

The blogfires of the Vanities

Yawn...

I really appreciate the posts here by Steve and Hilzoy, and the quality of the posts is self-evident. I can appreciate the need for anonymity, especially for publishers of antimonarchist pamphlets when they are entirely liable to lose their heads over it. Nonetheless, with apologies to Hilzoy, my bias is that on the whole opinions carry more weight when writers back them up with their true identity.

(I was tempted to make my point by signing as "Anonymous"....)

The only reason he apologized is that the right was as pissed at him as the left. Had he had the support of the righties in the blogosphere, he wouldn't have apologized.

Too much credit, IMHO. Sorry.

Sorry, DanP, my use of the name "harry and louise" was, of course, satirical. Naturally the CEO's--like, famously, the CEO of Whole Foods, will blog pseudonymously under a not quite so famous name. Also, see under John Lott/Mary Rosh.

aimai

What I'd like to hear is an analysis by those who called Publius a coward telling us why it's ok for someone else to blog pseudonymously on The Corner at National Review Online.

"The only reason he apologized is that the right was as pissed at him as the left. Had he had the support of the righties in the blogosphere, he wouldn't have apologized."

Actually, there are several righties who defended him. It was mostly thoughtless extremists like him, such as Jonah Goldberg, but they were out there. My take on this is two-fold:

First, since Publius was the offended party here, it is up to him whether or not this apology is adequate. He's decided that it is. End of matter, IMO.

Second, JFK once said it best. "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." Since Publius has let this go, I will to. But I'm not going to forget what Whelan did, or who defended him when he did it.

If I'm not being clear here I guess what I'd like to add is that I fully support pseudonymity and its accompanying anonymity--after all I choose to write pseudonymously. One reason is that its dangerous to expose yourself to the large number of nutcases who stalk the internet and the real world. Another is that there is an extreme level of hostility to females generally that is often expressed strongly on message boards and clearly female names are called out very viciously. If I were employed by a conservative employer, or even one that was merely publicity shy, I'd be concerned that my opinions and my way of expressing it would fall foul of corporate policy, or otherwise taint my business interests. These are all very legitimate reasons, contra N. Wells, for creating and maintaining an honest pseudonym (as is the fact that a name like John Smith or N.Wells is as anonymous as a distinctive name like "aimai" is unique and identifiable.)

But there remains, for us as a bloggosphere, the problem of shills, sock puppets, and astroturfing in which the very seeming non-pundity status, the imitation of the amateur, becomes the goal. Whelan complained (and many of his supporters did too) that Publius's pseudonymity and anonymity (that is, that we didn't know he was a law professor) made it hard for them to judge whether he was a good guide to legal or political issues. What if he was just some nobody? They cried. Because nobodies--IANAL in internetspeak--ought not to be respected in discussion even if they are winning the argument. Maybe especially if they are winning the argument.

But the internet, like fox news, can also be a venue through which interested parties feign amateur status in order to create the illusion of dispassionate, truthful, local, storytelling. In that case the pseudonymity or anonymity of the blogger's name is meant to disguise the fact that far from being a nobody, an "ordinary citizen" they are, in fact, a paid hack. Their testimony as to the truth of their experiences and their politics thus bears the same relationship to the truth that paid blurbs on the back on summer reading bears to actual reader response. "The greatest story ever told!" "What happened to me during my summer vacation, as told by Joe the Plumber..."

My point is that while I'm really happy we rose, as one, to defend pseudonymity on the net in a very short time we will return to discovering that paid actors are replacing real bloggers, at least on the right where their policies are so anti-democratic and anti-real-experience that they have to pay people to imagine that the work well. That is, once they've exhausted Megan McCardle or Ross Douthat's ability to be disengenous publicly under their own names.

aimai

You can't unring a bell. Whelan can't undo what he did.

I don't see how he has made amends for his actions. I would be more impressed if he accompanied his statement with an action, like a donation to a charity designated by publius.

aimai,

Extremely well said.

What I'd like to hear is an analysis by those who called Publius a coward telling us why it's ok for someone else to blog pseudonymously on The Corner at National Review Online.

Posted by: T.R. Elliott

That's interesting. It seems Whelan put that person at some risk by disclosing Publius's id.

Nice work, Ed.

"I think this episode goes a long way toward officially ratifying one of the most important unwritten rules of online ethics, i.e., that a person's decision to write under a pseudonym should be respected barring compelling reasons not to do so."

It's great that Whelen apologized for being a petty jerk, but not so much if it means that pseudonymity is enshrined as some sort of Official Internet Cloak of Invisibility.

Mike

Whelan did not, upon calm reflection, come to the realization that he did something wrong. He apologized because he saw how almost universally damning the response was, including from a number of people he respects.
So the same pathological narcisism that prompted him to lash out at publius has now driven him to apologize -- just to stanch the damage. He's still glad he nailed publius, he just wants to be absolved.
Maybe he saw what was coming in today's NYTimes: a story saying the pediatric guidelines about to be published will include recognizing and dealing with bullies.

Whelan apologized. Fine and dandy.

Still doesn't mean that I think much less of him now than before, and I think of him as an ethical scuzz bucket.

Actions have consequences.

"It's great that Whelen apologized for being a petty jerk, but not so much if it means that pseudonymity is enshrined as some sort of Official Internet Cloak of Invisibility."

Translation: good manners are nice, as long as they don't support something I personally disagree with.

Steve:

Didn't you start off using a pseudonym?

Why did you?
Why did you stop?

Dp any of us deserve to know the answers to that questions?

For those of you who continue to pile on Whalen here for his original opinion (unlike those who merely find his opinions obnoxious and the description of him as a 'legal hitman' totally accurate) I suggest you read the further apology that Whalen wrote in the thread. It is gracious and seems totally sincere.

I have in the past found one fault with somecommenters here -- and more so on the more hysterical blogs on what will always be 'my side' -- a tendency to respond to an actual apology by giving one last 'kick in the teeth' to the apologizer and to look for dishonorable reasons for their apologies.

Now some of you, I'm sure have no trouble in getting up in public and admitting you have made an ass of yourself, and publicly regretting that they can't erase any damage they caused. And others of you just know you could nevereverever do something like that.

Not me. And besides, admitting an error sometimes -- unlikely in this case -- causes someone to rethink more than a casual, unconsidered phrase -- see Dean, John and Black, Hugo.

It's over, let it go, and find far more justifable reasons for attacking Whalen, but give him credit for what he's done.

Whelan did not, upon calm reflection, come to the realization that he did something wrong. He apologized because he saw how almost universally damning the response was, including from a number of people he respects.

Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but perhaps the condemnation from the right and the left (the only defense I saw was from his NRO colleagues) made him realize that he behaved inappropriately, and that is why he apologized, rather than just a CYA reaction. I'm sure he would have held out longer (or indefinitely) if he had more defenders, but I don't think apologizing because your mistakes had to be pointed out to you, rather than realizing your error through some epiphany, devalues the apology at all (absent any other evidence that he isn't truly contrite, which I haven't seen). Usually mistakes are made because we don't realize as we are committing them they will end up being mistakes, and we need to be presented with some evidence (an explanation from another person, the negative consequences of our actions) before we realize we have erred. I can't read Whelan's mind, and perhaps he still doesn't really think he was wrong, but he has publicly admitted he was wrong in no uncertain terms, and for the public debate that is really all that matters.

"It's over, let it go, and find far more justifable reasons for attacking Whalen, but give him credit for what he's done."

I find this line often coming from conservatives. They seem to take a paternalist hard-line approach when discussing the raising of children, yet when one of their own conservative brethren strays they think an apology or an "oops" is all it takes to move on.

Bush errs by invading Iraq. Conservatives say "oh, that's the past, let's move on." Whelan outs blogger, then apologizes--and isn't it convenient that his apology is coordinated with Jack Dunphy's pleading request to not out him?--so no repercussions?

There is a price to pay in most endeavors. Saying "I'm sorry" doesn't wipe the slate clean. Punishment is often still necessary. Conservatives should understand this. They often don't. Because they speak about principles but often don't live by them.

What a two faced liar Whalen is.
Can have his petty satisfactions and then think that an appology will make the booboo go away.

I suggest you read the further apology that Whalen wrote in the thread. It is gracious and seems totally sincere.

I saw that as well and agree.

Whelan's knee-jerk reaction to being criticized was infantile and typical of rightwing behavior, imo. Very childish. Supremely immature.

Now THAT's how you apologize.

None of this "if Publius was offended, I apologize" crapola.

Well done.

Howdy.

While I agree that apologies, however sincere, don't undo damage, I would like to see us on the Left be gracious accepters of apologies, as Publius has been in this case.

I don't assume that I know what was in Whelan's mind as he apologized. The fact that he did so is a small kudo in his direction.

What sort of behavior do we want to encourage? Don't we WANT people to act like adults? And apologizing when one is wrong is adult behavior. After all, don't we liberals want to encourage "jaw, jaw", rather than "war, war"?

Aimai, thanks for a thoughtful response. To clarify from my end, I have no great problem with someone wanting to remain anonymous, and I did not deny that there are many good and legitimate reasons for doing so. However, attaching a name means taking responsibility for an opinion, whereas anonymity can (can, doesn't have to be) just be an excuse for irreponsibility, nonveracity, and the like. My point is, simply, that that confers a little more credibility that otherwise has to earned the hard way.

Moreover, any anonymous idiot can falsely claim any degree of experience and authority in anonymous posting (e.g., "I'm a biology professor and I'm telling you all this evolution crap is total nonsense"), while nonanonymity allows verification of credentials, which can be relevant in some cases.

I was going to say that I fully support a blogger's right to privacy if they wish it, but I realized that I have lots of exceptions. If someone in a position of public responsibility is blogging contrary to his or her public positions, I'd view outing a hypocrite to be the greater good. Second, I favor exposing someone who is lying about their expertise (e.g., "as someone who fought in Vietnam and Iraq, let me tell you ......."). Along the same lines, I favor exposing sockpuppets in general and in particular people paid to push a particular viewpoint (e.g., I'm suspicious of some of the more robotic-seeming partisan sockpuppets and concern trolls who disappeared the moment the election was over).

That was very classy of him. It takes a big man to swallow his pride and admit when he has made a mistake. Kudos for him.

"However, attaching a name means taking responsibility for an opinion, whereas anonymity can (can, doesn't have to be) just be an excuse for irreponsibility, nonveracity, and the like. My point is, simply, that that confers a little more credibility that otherwise has to earned the hard way."

This is the one point that I keep asking you folks to justify, and you never do. Why, exactly, do you think that attaching your name makes your musings more credible? The hacks and morons at Fox "News" show quite well how ridiculous a notion that is. We know who they are, and they have no credibility at all.

In point of fact, the *only* legitimate way to get credibility is to earn it "the hard way" (as you put it). Whether or not you're anonymous makes no difference. If you are an idiot, a hack, an empty-headed partisan, or anything like that, then your writing/speaking will reflect that whether you attach your name to it or not. Similarly, if you are none of those things, then, again, your writing/speaking will reflect your intelligence whether you attach your name to it or not.

The only reason I've been able to come up with for claiming that anonymous writing is "less credible" is to give yourself an excuse to dismiss things you don't like but can't refute. If you have a better justification for it, then please provide it.

If someone puts their name to an opinion that means that they are willing to stand behind it publically. If they don't, then they aren't. There may well be legitimate reasons for this, but it's not insignificant. In politics, if someone or an organization that I trust publically endorses someone, I listen. When there's an ad funded by an anonymous "citizens for something or other", I try to tune it out.