On reflection, I now realize that, completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging, I have been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius. Earlier this evening, I sent him an e-mail setting forth my apology for my uncharitable conduct. As I stated in that e-mail, I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.Maybe Whelan will sleep better?
Interestingly, just now Paul at Power Line comes to Whelan's defense, and John adds this in an update:
Anonymity is the curse of the internet, and the principal reason for the dismally low level of discourse that generally prevails online. Which is why we have absolutely banned anonymous comments from our experimental comment system. In my opinion, the idea that a goofball like Blevins has some sort of "right" to smear Whelan anonymously, without taking responsibility for his assaults, is ridiculous. Be a man, for God's sake. Or, for that matter, a woman - you don't see Michelle Malkin, say, scurrying out from under a rock to issue anonymous attacks. If you can't muster the gumption to say who the hell you are and stand behind your words, my view is: get lost. You have nothing to contribute.I think the case of milbloggers might be an exception, but other than that, I'm down with John. See, "As if Osama and Your Mama Were Reading..."
More at Memeorandum.
0 comments:
Post a Comment