As many of you know, the identity of the anonymous author of the Mudflats Alaska blog was recently outed by a representative in her state, Rep. Mike Doogan (D.).
Here is a copy of the email** I just sent him (and other members of the democratic legislative caucus) in her defense:
**Note -- some things I wish I had said or might otherwise wish to clarify have been altered from my original message since I first posted it, including full case numbers and references for the SCOTUS cases. Thanks to all the commenters on this and other subject-related diaries for giving me additional information not contained in my original research on the topic.
Personal:
Gerald Michael Doogan
4800 Cambridge Way
Anchorage, AK 99503
907 561 7990
Business:
PHONE: (907) 465-4998
FAX: (907) 465-4419
ADDRESS: AK State Capitol
Room # 112
Juneau, AK 99801
To: Rep.Mike.Doogan@legis.state.ak.us
CC: rep.beth.kerttula@legis.state.ak.us, Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us, Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us, Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us
rep.bob.buch@legis.state.ak.us
rep.sharon.cissna@legis.state.ak.us
rep.harry.crawford@legis.state.ak.us
rep.les.gara@legis.state.ak.us
rep.berta.gardner@legis.state.ak.us
rep.max.gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us
rep.david.guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us
rep.lindsey.holmes@legis.state.ak.us
rep.scott.kawasaki@legis.state.ak.us
rep.pete.petersen@legis.state.ak.us
rep.woodie.salmon@legis.state.ak.us
rep.chris.tuck@legis.state.ak.us
Dear Rep. Doogan:
You recently "outed" the identity of a previously (and by choice) heretofor unidentified, pseudonymous blogger writing about Alaskan politics. In doing so, you have certainly harmed yourself politically, but potentially legally and ethically as well. And all on the heels of an "abuse of power" probe in your state!
Your justification for this action is that someone should not be allowed to make "relentless attacks" (as you call them) on others anonymously. In fact, you are incorrect about this. History -- including figures in American History -- has many examples of people writing pseudonymously, and for many reasons.
--Mark Twain (real name: Samuel Langhorne Clemens)
--George Orwell (real name: Eric Blair)
--George Sand (real name: Amandine Auror Lucie Dupin)
--George Eliot (real name: Mary Ann Evans)
--M.B. Drapier (real name: Jonathan Swift)
--Anonymous ("Primary Colors") (real name: Joe Klein)
Ah, but those authors were writing fiction, not attacks, you say! So what, then, about these examples?
--Deep Throat (real name: Mark Felt), who, while not a writer, gave up information on the condition of anonymity, that eventually brought down a President. Bob Woodward kept his end of the bargain and never outed his source, despite many efforts to by others to compel him to do so, and when Deep Throat's identity became public, it was because Deep Throat (Felt) himself decided to do the outing.
--Publius (real names: John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison), and nearly 50 other names used by others both in support and in opposition to The Federalists.
--Ms. Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, and Timothy Turnstone (real name: Benjamin Franklin)
--Billy Muldoon (real name: Gerald Michael Doogan of Alaska, aka YOU!) -- not to put you in the company of those previously listed at all, of course, but listed here only to out your hypocrisy, if not your identity....
All of these authors had reasons for keeping their identity hidden. Orwell (Blair), for example, was a police officer in Burma and feared backlash over his socialist views. For what it's worth, you don't know her reasons for wanting to remain anonymous -- perhaps it is a crazy ex she was trying to hide from, or she (or her husband) were employess in a place that wouldn't be tolerant of her views if know. I've worked in places like that, and so have most of us. Truth is, no one knows but her. BUT SHE DOES HAVE A RIGHT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS BY CHOICE!
In fact, the Supreme Court of the United States has even waded into this territory, remarking that "under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fradulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent." The SCotUS has confronted this issue multiple times: Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Talley v. California 362 U.S. 60 (1960).
However, none are more important than McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), where Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning additions or omissions to the content of the publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment." In a concurring decision, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote "we should determine whether the phrase ‘freedom of speech, or of the press,’ as originally understood, protected anonymous political leafleting. I believe that it did." Please note that, in this same decision, Justice Stevens also said that anonymous speech protects "unpopular individuals from retaliation --and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
You, sir, represent that intolerant society. You have removed Mudflats first amendment rights by outing her identity against her wishes, as well as the rights of many of those that enjoy her work (including mine), and created a situation where she might feel disinclined to keep writing. Maybe this was your aim all along, but regardless, you have done so against all ethical and moral responsibilities you have to your employers (your constituency!) in what appears to be a personal vendetta, carried out using taxpayer-provided resources. And, from the outside, that seems to be all it is -- she said some things about you that you didn't like, and made this into a personal mission. However, you have probably crossed legal and historical lines that I doubt you understood or took the time to research while crafting your newsletter. Your justification for this is that it is your belief that people should dissent under their own names -- but that's YOUR THEORY, one that our founding fathers and many like them clearly did not subscribe to.
Moreover, you might have a point -- if what she said was libelous and you wished to take legal action. But what she said wasn't slanderous defamatory or libelous because what she published was true -- she merely reproduced some email exchange that painted you in a bad light, and you took exception. The reason, in fact, I read Mudflats is because nothing is sensationalized. But because you didn't like it, you've made yourself into an even bigger target and vehicle for ridicule instead of just taking your medicine as you should have. As a former journalist yourself, you should have known better -- and I'm sure your email inbox lately won't contradict my assertion.
Thus, your actions are shameful and unethical at best, and criminal at worst. And, though you affected me with your actions, sadly I cannot vote against you in your next election to hold YOU accountable. So, I will do the next best thing -- despite living in Overland Park, Kansas, I will do what I can to publicise your actions, fund your opposition in primary and general elections, and otherwise shame you for commiting such a heinous act of treachery.
Frankly, I hope you're glad you live in 21st century America, where legal repercussions are the very worst thing you might have to face. In colonial America, she might have challenged you to a duel. And, on the basis of your latest showcase of shamlessness and cowardice, I suspect you would have lost.
Chosing not to remain anonymous, lest you stalk me too,
-- John Westerhaus
Overland Park, KS
***Update: I wish I had looked into this aspect a bit more too before crafting my reply. According to a lawyer who posted a comment to a different blog covering this same Mudflats topic:
This is a violation of federal law and of the state common law right to privacy. The fact that he did it on state time and in his capacity is what is called "state action" for a section 1983 civil rights claim. The Mudflats blogger, who was absolutely entitled to comment on matters of public interest and equally entitled to do so anonymously, has a significant lawsuit against this clown. Were I admitted to the Alaska bar, I’d love to handle it. Since I am not, I very much hope that she finds a lawyer with experience in civil rights claims. In addition to awarding damages, they also award attorneys’ fees. That is the only way to stop this sort of abuse of public position.
Also, thanks to a comment by poster JDog42, I didn't include this line in my original letter but would have if I could re-write and/or re-send:
--Billy Muldoon (real name: Gerald Michael Doogan of Alaska, aka YOU!) -- author of an Alaskan Political column, authored under a psudonym. I include this here not to put you in the company of those previously listed at all, of course, but listed here only to out your hypocrisy, if not your identity....