But the worst of us are commonly the 'anonymous' bloggers.
Anonymity is a delicious mask to hide behind, resulting in far too many bloggers falling foul of what the Internet has come to call 'John Gabriel's Great Internet Fuckwad Theory.'
But the fact is, not all anonymous bloggers are idiots. In fact, many people blog behind the shield of anonymity for legitimate reasons.
After all, the problem with expressing opinions over the 'net is that you can later be called to task for them. I mention in this post some examples of Internet activity coming back to bite poor bloggers - including the story of a schoolteacher fired for publishing a picture of her consuming an alcoholic beverage on MySpace.
I know plenty of 'anonymous' bloggers who write incognito to protect their 'real-life' reputations - and that freedom to truly express themselves is why their blogs tend to be good. 'Out and proud' bloggers, myself included, occasionally censor ourselves because people we know might be reading.
So anonymity is a choice - and one that evolved bloggers respect.
Which is why is was incredibly disappointed to hear about National Review Online hack Ed Whelans smugly 'outing' an anonymous blogger who dared to mock him.Ed Whelan, a conservative pundit, was so incensed by a response posted by anonymous blogger publius that he tracked down publius' real identity and shared it with the readers of his blog.
"I’ve been reliably informed that publius is in fact the pseudonym of law professor John F. Blevins of the South Texas College of Law," Whelan smugly announced, in a post entitled Exposing an Irresponsible Anonymous Blogger. He brushes off the mistake publius was criticizing him for - instead declaring "Gee, I think it’s the guy hiding behind the pseudonym who has reason to be embarrassed."
publius, AKA John Blevins, held up his hand after this exposure and admitted his identity - revealing that he'd written anonymously because: "I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging can cause problems – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable based on my posts."I think Blevins has handled his 'outing' with grace and class - which is more than I can say for Whelan. As a contributor to National Review Online, I thought he'd have had at least a modicum of respect for his blogging peer. Instead, he smugly gloated about his 'victory' in three follow up posts.
He brushed off criticisms of what he did, arguing that people "seem to assume that I owed some sort of obligation to Blevins not to expose his pseudonymous blogging. I find this assumption baffling. A blogger may choose to blog under a pseudonym for any of various self-serving reasons, but I don’t see why anyone else has any obligation to respect the blogger’s self-serving decision."
Whelan clearly doesn't 'get it.' His decision to 'out' Blevins - deliberately, and with the understanding that doing so might criticize the professor's job - says more about Whelan that it will ever say about Blevins.
Ed Whelan was unable to sustain an intellectual debate with his detractors, so he resorted to the final, desperate act of the ethically bankrupt - he decided to make a 'real life' attack against somebody in 'revenge' for having his Internet credibility questioned.
It's frankly pathetic. If Whelan was half the man he arrogantly thinks he is, he'd have been able to nail publius in debate, without resorting to personal attacks. What he did is disrespectful, cowardly, pathetic and reprehensible; a well-respected 49-year-old legal professional has reduced himself to childish antics.
But while Ed Whelan is clearly the 'bad guy' here, it does present a sobering warning to the rest of us.
There is no such thing as Internet 'anonymity' Not truly. That's why we've all got to think very hard about exactly what we share on the Internet.
Whatever we write, we may very well have those words thrown back in our face at some point in the future. Therefore, before you hit the 'publish post' button, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we're really willing to stand by what we write.
