# Is it cowardly to use pseudonymns? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 8, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157 "2009-06-08T23:07:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/61 "2009-06-09T17:26:38Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Except they aren’t equivalent, since telemarketing against peoples wishes (as manifested by the do-not-call list) is illegal. Phone solicitation was found to be a public nusance, and so the gov’t took steps to stop it. Outing bloggers isn’t a public nuisance and hasn’t been made illegal. Indeed I suspect an attempt by the gov’t to keep private individuals from revealing eachothers identities would be unconstitutional (as would preventing them from trying to assume anonymous identities). And as I pointed out illegal =/= ethical. > [@](#): > > Your first phrase is basically my thesis, so we agree. This is a good example of the reason for my hatred of analogies (which burns with the firey hatred of a hundred suns) in debates, we agree, but are still left arguing over the validity of some analogy. Frankly, I don’t really care if the Do Not Call list has “some equivalence” with the assumption of a psuedonym. > How can something both be the crux of my argument and also not pertinent? But anyways, I certainly wouldn’t suggest that just because something is legal, it is also ethical (or the reverse, though that’s at least arguable). My point with the illegality of puching someone in the nose or calling someone on the Do Not Call list make them poor analogies for outing bloggers. Not pertinent to the discussion engendered by the OP. I’m merely refuting the validity of what seems to be the crux of your arguments in favor of outing. And in this thread, you have already been conflating legal with ethical, illegal with unethical. I disagree with your argument and I find your reasoning incomplete and specious. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/62 "2009-06-09T17:47:00Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > That something might do harm to someone is different then doing something _to_ cause harm. Punching you in the nose is pretty unambiguously meant to hurt you. Outing someone as the writer of a blog could have ill effects on them, but there are plenty of reasons to do it other then hurting them. > [@](#): > > Umm…one’s name is not exactly ALL your private information. If Publius’s HIV status or sexual history or something unambiguously private had been revealed, then I’d agree that that would be unethical. But one’s name is sort of the opposite of private, it’s entire purpose is to allow other people to identify you. How do you reconcile these 2 statements? In the first, you seem to be saying that as long as your actions don’t clearly and directly harm someone, that it’s ok. Yet in the second, you mention revealing HIV status or sexual history. I don’t see much difference between saying “TAH DAH, poster Tastes of Chocolate is really Jane Smith”, and saying “Jane Smith had an HIV test and the results were xyz.” In neither case am I doing something that unambiguiosly causes harm. In both cases all I could claim that my purpose was something other then to cause harm. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/63 "2009-06-09T18:05:23Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#): > > How do you reconcile these 2 statements? In the first, you seem to be saying that as long as your actions don’t clearly and directly harm someone, that it’s ok. I don’t see how you can get this out of the text you quoted. I was responding to **Oakminster’s** statement that the only reason to out someone was to harm them with pointing out that even if someone is harmed, it doesn’t necessarily mean that was the outters primary purpose, and so still could be defensible. I didn’t say (or even say anything that suggested that) just because something doesn’t harm someone makes it OK. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/64 "2009-06-09T18:34:40Z")
Well, often times those who would out an anonymous person would not have any appreciation of the harm it might cause. As was shown before, a blogger relating his candid views on the industry he works in may face professional consequences. Someone writing dirty stories on the Internet may have their spouse divorce them. Someone sharing his pro-gun views on the Straight Dope may be run out of Berkeley, California, on a rail. And as others have said, your argument of ethics and law is overly simplistic. For example, you seem to be saying that harassing telemarketer calls were ethically neutral right up until the moment that the legislature banned them. Unless you are equating legal with ethical, and illegal with unethical, your constant references to outing the anonymous is simply a red herring. Furthermore, analogies are never perfect, but at least if they are honestly proposed and critically analyzed they can help illuminate one’s thinking on matters. Unfortunately, when asked about analogous situations, I’m afraid it appears as though you simply don’t want to answer the questions for fear that it would undermine your case. For example, if one were to admit that in the absence of laws to the otherwise, telemarketers would be wrong to zealously track down customers so as to run roughshod over someone’s interest in privacy, one would also be admitting that a person is entitled to a degree of respect for efforts to remain private. One could then go on to point out and disagree as to whether a blogger is entitled to privacy when they are publishing their views on issues, but that’s not what you’re doing. Your argument is merely that you won’t answer the question because aggressive telemarketing is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/65 "2009-06-09T18:41:26Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > Except they aren’t equivalent, since telemarketing against peoples wishes (as manifested by the do-not-call list) is illegal. Phone solicitation was found to be a public nusance, and so the gov’t took steps to stop it. Outing bloggers isn’t a public nuisance and hasn’t been made illegal. A more factual statement would be “Outing bloggers hasn’t been found a public nuisance _yet_”. I’ll join the “legal and moral ain’t synonymous” dogpile, btw. As \*\*ashman \*\*says, laws are only the manifestation of the current consensus on ethics and reasonable compromise. Going by the extant law to figure out right and wrong is… well, foolish. It’s akin to opening a crate with the crowbar that’s inside it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/66 "2009-06-09T19:10:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > your constant references to outing the anonymous is simply a red herring. Typo: constant references to the LEGALITY of outing… ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/67 "2009-06-09T19:14:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > And as others have said, your argument of ethics and law is overly simplistic. For example, you seem to be saying that harassing telemarketer calls were ethically neutral right up until the moment that the legislature banned them. Unless you are equating legal with ethical, and illegal with unethical, your constant references to outing the anonymous is simply a red herring. Again, my deal with telemarketing being illegal vs legal isn’t that one is automatically moral and one isn’t, it’s that comparing a legal action to an illegal one doesn’t tell us much of _anything_ about the morality of one vs the other, because while some legal actions may be unethical and vice versa, I think its pretty clear that something being illegal does carry a lot of moral baggage, its illegality certainly has to be strongly considered in a discussion of whether its ethical or not. OK, you say, then lets go back in time to before legislation creating the do-not-call list. Now there’s no legal question, is telemarketing to unlisted numbers unethical? I’d say the answer is still somewhat ambiguous, the first guy who tried doing it was probably OK, after all, telemarketing seems to be a natural growth from mail-solicitations or door-to-door salesmen, and there are plenty of places to get numbers from that aren’t public listings but are still outside the private sphere. But as the number of telemarketers increased, it became an increasingly obvious it was an annoying nuisance, and I’d say that an ethical person would’ve stopped at that point. But here’s the thing, none of these issues exist with outing bloggers. Outing a blogger isn’t a public nuisance. There isn’t a growing trend of outing bloggers. We’ve entered into a whole discussion about telemarketers that really doesn’t inform what we wanted to discuss. And indeed, this thread has been bogged down in analogies. I never said anything about outing a blogger being ethical because it was legal, but my arguments against an analogy is being mixed in with my argument against outing being unethical, which while I’m sure is an honest mistake, rather shows how easy it is for using analogies in debates to make a mess of other peoples arguments. > [@](#): > > For example, if one were to admit that in the absence of laws to the otherwise, telemarketers would be wrong to zealously track down customers so as to run roughshod over someone’s interest in privacy, one would also be admitting that a person is entitled to a degree of respect for efforts to remain private. Except again, this isn’t a good analogy. The problem with telemarketers calling you isn’t the fact that they get your telephone number against your wishes, but that they use it to _call you_ during dinner against your wishes. Indeed the Do Not Call list protects you from being called against your wishes by _giving your phone number to the telemarketers_ and telling them not to call it. > [@](#): > > Your argument is merely that you won’t answer the question because aggressive telemarketing is illegal. No it isn’t, I summarized my argument in the last post. > [@me](#): > > I think this is the crux of our argument. You seem to think that if someone makes it clear they want something kept secret, everyone else is morally obligated to keep it for them. While certainly I agree that in many cases it is not very nice to spill the beans on someone, and indeed in many cases it may be unethical, it is not necessarily so. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/68 "2009-06-09T20:50:13Z")
Just thought I’d throw in a link [to the horses’ mouth](http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/stay-classy-ed-whelan.html). The assumption that you don’t have to feel bad for screwing someone over if you can’t find a specific moral imperative for not doing so? Bitch was asking for it? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/69 "2009-06-09T21:04:04Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I think this is the crux of our argument. You seem to think that if someone makes it clear they want something kept secret, everyone else is morally obligated to keep it for them. While certainly I agree that in many cases it is not very nice to spill the beans on someone, and indeed in many cases it may be unethical, it is not _necessarily_ so. If I find out Cecil Adams is really Britney Spears’s pen name, and I found out not because Cecil/Britney told me in confidence but simply by chance, I don’t think I’m under any ethical obligation not to shout it from the rooftops. I kept in your final sentence because I think it directly contradicts the sentiment of the prior one. I can agree that “in many cases” it isn’t nice and may be unethical, but “it is not _necessarily_ so”. There are always exceptions to any rule, after all. Many of us will agree that when a cigarette company uses a shill of a scientist to spread misinformation about lung cancer (effectively using the scientist as a living pseudonym) , the connection should be pointed out; presumably the same would apply to a company shill using a synonym to conceal their bias and ulterior motivations. But then to leap from there to “I found out Cecil/Britney’s identity, so I guess it’s alright to spread it around for no reason whatesoever!” seems to completely blow away your own admission that “in many cases” the secret should be kept. If you really agreed with your own words, you wouldn’t _default_ to the exceptional-case condition! Sorry, no. Either it’s okay to try and sabotage a person for no reason, or it’s not. I say it’s not. _Your own argument_ says its not. The possibility of extenuating circumstances does not mean they are assumed to exist. Even if you really really want to be mean and not be criticized for it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/70 "2009-06-09T21:20:59Z")
[nitpick] **pseudonym** folks, not **synonym** [/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/71 "2009-06-09T21:24:46Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [nitpick] > > **pseudonym** folks, not **synonym** > > [/nitpick] Just pretend that “synonym” is a pseudonym for “pseudonym”; that makes “pseudonym” a synonym for “synonym” (both in the original and pseudonymical senses of the term(s)), which _clearly_ makes it all right. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/72 "2009-06-09T21:58:15Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Just pretend that “synonym” is a pseudonym for “pseudonym”; that makes “pseudonym” a synonym for “synonym” (both in the original and pseudonymical senses of the term(s)), which _clearly_ makes it all right. LOL 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2009, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157/73 "2009-06-11T00:56:54Z")
It seems a little mean-spirited to reveal personal information unless there is good reason. How can something be ethical and mean-spirited at the same time? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-cowardly-to-use-pseudonymns/499157.md?page=3)