The rapprochement between Ed Whelan and Publius seems to have sparked even more commentary than the rift, so I couldn’t miss out on a chance to get in on the Memeorandum linkfest. There’s a decent round-up of reaction at The Moderate Voice, including some people who think Whelan should not have apologized. Professor Jacobsen feels cheated.

The debate went well beyond whether Whelan was being pissy. And, while most appreciate that the dispute sparked debate on the legitimacy of anonymous blogging, Rick Moran takes aim at anonymous blog commenters. He opens the issue with this irony, but there’s much, much more at the link:

I note a couple of things from the comments and emails I’ve received on this matter. First, I found it more just a little ironic that many of those defending Whelan were anonymous commenters themselves. I think it also revealing – at least, based on an unscientific survey of comments on my site and elsewhere – that many bloggers, even on the right, sympathized with Publius and even supported his right to anonymity while many commenters did not.

The real issue of anonymity as far as I’m concerned has nothing to do with bloggers but rather with those who comment on their sites. Yes, there is a difference – a big one. I don’t think I can recall a single instance where a blog commenter lost their job, or was harassed or stalked, or suffered in any way for commenting on a blog post using their own name. If there are such cases, they must be very rare and not well publicized. What are the chances of an employer of a blog commenter who uses their real name, running across a comment made on a website – even if they’re looking for it – and firing that commenter for something he said.

Moran has a point on the difference in effect, perhaps. But I would limit the validity of his larger point to anonymous commenters who provide no contact information or link to their own sites. Many commenters are bloggers themselves, who comment in part to generate traffic back to their own blog (without being too blatant about it, usually.) If anonymity is OK on their blogs, it has to be OK for their comments. Moran e this in response to a commenter who defended anonymous commenting by anonymous bloggers, especially attorney bloggers like me. I wouldn’t call it backpedaling, just a clarification (no direct links, but see comment n0s. 4 and 12 and on the post):

Like you, I’m sure Publius comments on blog posts at other sites. But people like you and Publius get a pass in my book simply because you are bloggers and your work is much easier to find than a troll whose comments are difficult to discover using a search engine. This makes them invisible – and reckless, in my opinion.

This was one of my beefs back when I frequented Usenet.  (Does anybody still use Usenet?) But anonymity seemed largely built into that system as I reall, as the newsgroups would automatically use your ISP username.

Moran ultimately distinguishes between the drive-by commenter trying to stir a hornet’s nest and those offering more substantive points. Which seems to have been the distinction that many discussed in their blog posts about the merits of anonymous blogging

Where to draw the line on outing anonymous bloggers? See how more than 6600 readers voted at HotAir on the question “When is it OK to out anonymous bloggers?” (Scroll to the bottom of that post.)

UPDATE: Oops. Originally posted with wrong title. Fixed.

UPDATE #2: and . . . oops #2. HotAir link fixed. Along with half a dozen typos. Criminy.