Are Public People Entitled to Anonymity? Which Ones?
Some actions are easy to characterize, such as Unity08 deciding it would begin deleting portions of my questions from its website because they were — get this — taking up too much space. On the threads I started there, devoted specifically to those questions. A much easier way for my questions to Unity08 to stop taking up space would be for Unity08 to answer the questions. I wasn’t about to have Unity08 apparatchiks editing my statements and keeping my name associated with the content — so I deleted the questions from the website, with an explanation of what Unity08 was planning and a link to those same questions, unaltered, here.
Some other actions are more difficult to judge. Unity08 decided to further edit my post, removing address information of a person who received a tidy sum in payment for working on the thoroughly unsuccessful Unity Petition project, despite a very clear message that the Unity Petition project was all-volunteer:
Is anyone being paid for this Unity Petition effort?
No. It is entirely volunteer, from top to bottom.
This person’s name and address are already available as a matter of public record in Unity08’s 4th Quarter IRS report, which you can read here.
Should a person be exempted from having their address being published by media when it is already publicly available?
Think about that.
Now let me tell you that this person was a college student. “U08Moderator” (who was revealed earlier this week to be Unity08 Communications Director Shane Kinkennon) made a special effort to introduce the fact that the person who was paid was a college student. Does that change things? If so, why?
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this. I have a tentative position on this, but I can recognize that other positions may have some merit on this, and my mind is changeable. I’d like to hear your thoughts to help focus mine.