The man in question here *specifically* says, "If my patients read my writing it would make it hard for them to listen to me, and that would impact my business." Folks nod like this is fair, but is it actually fair to patients to suggest they're not allowed to know this?
I believe the right to a pen name requires a strong arguments on the merits to violate (something I made myself before for other cases). I don't need to read SLC to make that claim. It's on people who read him to make the argument on the merits.
-
-
And "trust us, he's terrible" is no way to make the argument. Anyone who is that dangerous deserves more than a few tweets and screenshots and "trust us". Nobody will survive that process; not the deserving or the undeserving.
-
When I thought there was a real case for de-anonymization, I went to the trouble to make the case, at length. I am not even a free speech absolutist but these are not small matters; they are too important to leave to who we happen to know or what one company decides we get to do.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Plus, the people have so quickly moved the goalposts! "Are you denying he's terrible?" I got told many times today. That is not a good-faith argument; to conflate the principle pseudonyms deserve protecting except on merit is now to defend views of everyone with pen names?
-
I think there are multiple layered conversations here. There is a very good and subtle question about how much effort a given writers content justifies for de-anonymizing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.