I’m a reader of the blog SlateStarCodex. Both the writing and the community is very important to me. As you probably know by now, Scott deleted his blog because he’s afraid that he will lose his job, and possibly have his life threatened, if you reveal his full name in print.
If this goes forward, it will change my perception of the New York Times. Right now, I see mainstream journalism as an important and relatively unbiased source of information, a contributor to the ideal of free speech and democracy. If the outcome of your policies and need for content is shutting down a blogging community that’s so important to my life, then I will start to see the NYT as limiting free speech by making successful, anonymous bloggers who want to stay that way unable to publish.
There are probably times when involuntarily revealing the true identity of an anonymous blogger is appropriate. For example, if they are advocating violence, have links to terrorist groups, and so on. This isn’t one of those times. It feels invasive, a sort of journalistic “peeping tom” behavior.
Generally, we should be able to speak the truth widely and freely, without worrying about being punished. Although I know Scott does not want the attention of national news media, you are able to publish your article with 99.9% of the content by omitting his last name. Your freedom of speech is not being seriously infringed.
Furthermore, you are the ones initiating the decision to pursue a story about an anonymous blogging community in the first place. If that’s a topic you want to cover, when the members of that community don’t want their identities revealed, then the least you can do is respect the wishes of the members of that community to remain anonymous. These policies you have in place are not laws. They’re just your decisions. You have full responsibility for their outcomes, both as a person and as a news organization. You can choose to soften or change them, or at least advocate for this.
My personal action in response to this doxxing would be to boycott your newspaper, and ask friends and family to do so as well.
The news media’s reputation as a foundation of democracy is already under attack from one segment of the political spectrum. Please don’t create reasons to undermine that perception more broadly.
My open letter to the NY Times:
Hello,
I’m a reader of the blog SlateStarCodex. Both the writing and the community is very important to me. As you probably know by now, Scott deleted his blog because he’s afraid that he will lose his job, and possibly have his life threatened, if you reveal his full name in print.
If this goes forward, it will change my perception of the New York Times. Right now, I see mainstream journalism as an important and relatively unbiased source of information, a contributor to the ideal of free speech and democracy. If the outcome of your policies and need for content is shutting down a blogging community that’s so important to my life, then I will start to see the NYT as limiting free speech by making successful, anonymous bloggers who want to stay that way unable to publish.
There are probably times when involuntarily revealing the true identity of an anonymous blogger is appropriate. For example, if they are advocating violence, have links to terrorist groups, and so on. This isn’t one of those times. It feels invasive, a sort of journalistic “peeping tom” behavior.
Generally, we should be able to speak the truth widely and freely, without worrying about being punished. Although I know Scott does not want the attention of national news media, you are able to publish your article with 99.9% of the content by omitting his last name. Your freedom of speech is not being seriously infringed.
Furthermore, you are the ones initiating the decision to pursue a story about an anonymous blogging community in the first place. If that’s a topic you want to cover, when the members of that community don’t want their identities revealed, then the least you can do is respect the wishes of the members of that community to remain anonymous. These policies you have in place are not laws. They’re just your decisions. You have full responsibility for their outcomes, both as a person and as a news organization. You can choose to soften or change them, or at least advocate for this.
My personal action in response to this doxxing would be to boycott your newspaper, and ask friends and family to do so as well.
The news media’s reputation as a foundation of democracy is already under attack from one segment of the political spectrum. Please don’t create reasons to undermine that perception more broadly.
Sincerely,
X