Blogging Ethics? That has to rank up there with “Faithful Bubba”, “Humble Obama” or “Cuddly O’Reily”. The ethics of the blogosphere have allowed right and left to levy hateful, inaccurate and often damaging lies and vitriol spew unabated. Obama was a target of it (rumors of him being a Manchurian Muslim) and so was Palin (the kid’s kid, the Downs baby, burning books, etc.) as was McCain (infidelity). The only guy who was not a target was Biden, which affims the notion that you do not attack the inconsequential.

Secondly, Publius doth protest too much. Question: What lawyer leaves a federal job and does not go into lucrative private practice? Answer: One with no offers or one who understands his limitations.

I suspect his reason for the pseudonym, given his exceedingly poor grasp of the facts and the law have more to do with him being worried that exposure would reveal a very average lawyer with a shallow grasp of legal concepts. I have often thought some of the stuff he has written was parody as it was so poorly cited, explained and argued.

What Whelen did was mean, but on the bright side, some of Publius’ students can now avoid him for his politics and the rest because most law students do not want to end up middling country lawyers shilling malpractice suits at midnight on cable television.

Indeed, Prof. Blevins could dump the pseudonym ‘publius’, pick a new pseudonym, and start blogging under that new name. It would appear to you and me that nym#2 was a new person.

In this context, a pseudonymous personality is nothing more than a sock puppet. Indeed, one could have multiple pseudonymous personalities. Any pseudonymous personality on the web can be invented and removed at will. A real person cannot be. One’s real-life reputation is based on what one does. One’s pseudonymous reputation is based on how one writes on the web.

So I come down on the side of Mr. Whelan: if I were being attacked by a pseudonymous blogger, and if I were sufficiently vexed by that person, I would consider discovering and disclosing that person’s real identity. I’d try to be a bit more reasonable at first, but there’s the old saying: “I’m 51% nice guy and 49% jerk. Don’t push me.”

Steve White (my real name)

Blevins hides behind a mask, and far from merely debating the merits of judicial nominees (Koh and Sotomayor), chooses to use ad hominem attacks on Whelan and his credentials instead of debating the issue at hand.

Quotes from Blevins:

“[Ed Whelan is a] “know-nothing demagogue”

[Ed Whelan is a] “legal hitman”

There’s plenty more. Blevins is an obnoxious jerk who stepped over the line. When he attacked someone else’s reputation and credentials, his own reputation and credentials become fair game.

The person to blame for Blevins’ predicament is the person he sees in the mirror.

And the people who are tacitly defending Blevins by attacking Whelan are harming the cause of internet debate, not helping it.

Publius lays out his own sentence for the “crime” of anonymous blogging: “But I guess the fear is that it would make me more cautious in my writing.” Well, no duh.

He’s afraid of being more cautious in his writing? This, from a lawyer?

Sigh…