Blogging Ethics Bleg: Right or Wrong?

72 Comments

Jonathan Kamens • Jun 15, 2012 @7:18 am

It's OK to blog about Spouse if the comments would be worthy of blogging about were they not written by Spouse.

Once you're above that bar, anything the Spouse has written is fair game. Anything any content provider puts on the internet is fair game.
Disposable • Jun 15, 2012 @7:25 am

I say we leave [DELETED BY KEN] out of the discussion, she's (deliberately or through natural craziness) creating a diversion from the actual issues.
mojo • Jun 15, 2012 @7:26 am

Spouses postings should be considered alone. If they are response-worthy, respond. Attacking spouse because of connection to Villian is not right, but the mere fact of the connection should not be a bar.

I don't think the "kookiness" factor has any bearing at all, except, possibly, for amusement value.
Xenocles • Jun 15, 2012 @7:29 am

Surely you realize that this: "Speculation, accusation, hints, and jokes about who I'm talking about are unwelcome and will be taken as a personal affront" invites just what is described.
Matt • Jun 15, 2012 @7:30 am

I have to say, I'd think stipulation #2 is entirely dispositive as to the ultimate question.

Yeah, Spouse is now involving herself [just guessing, here, as to sex -- it's not like it actually matters] in the internet slap-fight over who's a worse person. But by going after Spouse, you would essentially be doing the same. Dragging yourself down to that level. Which would be, if not strictly speaking _immoral_, then at least unseemly and unbecoming the sort of person whose opinions regarding the original villainy are presumptively worthy of serious contemplation by third parties.

If someone who is _indisputably_ Spouse comes forward attempting to deny authorship of either of the sets of prior emissions referenced in this post, then the opportunity to offer evidence to refute such a claim might change the picture. But that seems unlikely, in this case.

Even were we not admonished against it in the post, I wouldn't bother speculating on who you're talking about here…there are just too many candidates.
Burt Likko • Jun 15, 2012 @7:30 am

Jonathan Kamens nails it.

Further question: is musing about possible sockpuppetry permissible? I say yes but it is doomed to be inconclusive.
Jason! • Jun 15, 2012 @7:31 am

Well, there's "defending" and "counter-attacking". When multiple members of a family are attacking the same person publicly, then it would seem they're all fair game.

Then again, a lot of people who post things publicly on the Internet for the entire world to see seem to want to use the extremely perplexing "I wasn't talking _to_ you, so you have no right to address what I wrote publicly on the Internet for the entire world to see. Stop stalking me, creeper." defense. There is some debate as to it's efficacy.
Ken • Jun 15, 2012 @7:32 am

Xenocles: I appeal to the better angels of your nature. I meant it. I take what Disposable did as "fuck you, Ken, I'll do what I want on your blog," and will now view him accordingly.
Kasey • Jun 15, 2012 @7:33 am

I think it's fair game, as long as you post a clear disclaimer that this person is CLAIMING to be the spouse of said villain, and treat it as such. Direct, or even indirect, accusations without proof that it is the wife of the villain, and especially if it turns out not to be, only serves to weakening the moral authority of the blogger and the position for which they stand.
shg • Jun 15, 2012 @7:37 am

Whether spouse or not, what difference does that make to the substantive issue? It's either about issues or personalities, and if the former, the latter doesn't matter. More importantly, a wife (or even a child) may come to the aid of husband (or father) out of devotion. Is it really necessary to win the point that we expand the insanity farther than reason dictates?

And as an aside, when you crowdsource a question, it's worthwhile to bear in mind the nature of the crowd being sourced.
Angela • Jun 15, 2012 @7:40 am

(long-time lurker, first-time commenter…) Spouse should be left out of the discussion unless spouse has become a direct and verifiable contributor to the actual conflict. Until s/he is clearly escalating the conflict, leave spouse alone. Partly as an ethical issue, but also because turning attention to her allows her to play the Wounded Spouse act which can make both spouse and villain seem more sympathetic.
Mercury • Jun 15, 2012 @7:41 am

The lesson here is that you are a fool to rely on the ethics of any and all other people in the world who have access to the internet and your personal information.

Pseudonymity has a long and respectable tradition in the history of Western Civilization's public dicourses. Make use of it while you still can.

Or just wait until Facebook bites the world in the ass and see for yourself ( and I'm not talking about their IPO!).
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @7:43 am

Personally I would not want my spouse or any family member attacked for a dispute I've had online or offline. I said the same thing to the person you are referencing. However if my spouse then went and started making public statements during such a dispute I would not expect a free pass from people. [Edited by Ken to remove last sentence, which was too much of a hint.]
Luke • Jun 15, 2012 @7:44 am

Determining if the comments defending the Villain's Spouse actually came from the Spouse is perfectly fine. You are trying to determine the validity of the claim that it is the Spouse which adds context to their writing in defense of the Villain. Also, nobody likes sock puppets. People can then choose on their own if the Spouse deserves any slack for her writings on the Villain/Victim situation.

The Blogger shouldn't be held responsible if other people misuse this information, so long as they keep their discussion of the Spouse's previous writings limited to determining the validity of the recent writings. If other people want to make fallacious arguments based on the prior writings that is on their head and they can be mocked in kind if necessary.
Wilhelm Arcturus • Jun 15, 2012 @7:47 am

To thine own self be true.

I think that the fact that you felt you needed to ask the question as a serious question indicates the answer. A random person on the internet posting under a name meant to indicate a relationship does not in fact establish such a relationship.

As Jonathan said at the top, the post itself would have to be worth blogging about, not merely the attempt to associate with the villain. There are too many attempts to satirize the unsatirizable on the internet.
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @7:49 am

Write about relevent things.
Are her comments relevant? If so write about them. If not focus on vilian.
TJIC • Jun 15, 2012 @7:51 am

I think we can all take as given that I'm a bit of a crazy lunatic who is not above decking a senior citizen if he throws the first punch (although I may have changed over the last two weeks).

Given that I firmly anchor the "loon" end of the continuum, I will not say that I'd shy away from dragging Wife into the fray (a) because the evidence tying the alleged post under her name to the actual woman is not 100% rock solid, (b) it can't hurt, morally speaking, to hang onto a bit of the high ground vis-a-vis involving family members, (c) it is a virtuous trait to stand in defense of one's spouse, and a bit of over-the-top craziness when one feels that one's spouse is bring threatened is, perhaps, something that none of us is above. I.e.: put any number of good women that you know in her shoes: are you 100% certain that they wouldn't act out in a way not entirely consistent with their normal personalities.

So: my vote: err on the side of caution.
Charles • Jun 15, 2012 @7:58 am

Just wait until she responds here. She probably will.
Xenocles • Jun 15, 2012 @7:59 am

Ken, I have no intention of speculating. I'm clueless enough that I wouldn't have thought of any connection to you – the warning actually raised the flag for me that you might be involved somehow. It was actually 50/50 in my mind at first whether Disposable's comment was edited at all or the redaction was there originally as a joke.

For what it's worth, I think [the abstract] you would be within your rights to remark on the spouse's available content, but the tactical wisdom of doing so depends on how strongly she has inserted herself in the fight (and if she has done so). You seem to understand the importance of tactical restraint, judging from "The Saucy Wink," &c.
Al • Jun 15, 2012 @8:05 am

What Jonathan Kamens said.
Dan Weber • Jun 15, 2012 @8:10 am

I'm stuck, perhaps myopically, on the "posting under the name" bit. Is a third-party posing as Spouse in order to ensnare someone? Is it a common enough name that a Non-spouse involved in the dispute could have it?

I might treat them as distinct entities and ignore suspicions that they are married. Like "over on Dickwaving.com, Jane Smith (unknown and for now irrelevant relation to my advesary Joe Smith) said I suck. Well, she sucks times infinity." This may not work depending on context.
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @8:15 am

Actually without confirmation of the identity of the person, I would err on the side of caution. My previous post more assumed it was the person in question rather than a possible impostor. Really nothing can be gained from the spouse inserting themselves in the argument other than a distraction from the actual facts.
Martin • Jun 15, 2012 @8:22 am

As long as one is clear and balanced in reporting the possibility that it is a troll, I believe this is not an unworthy topic to blog about. It has verifiably happened in at least one case I know (well over a year ago; I'd point to it but I don't want to risk crossing the "Ken line") that a villain's spouse did in fact indulge in on-line rants across several blogs defending that villain and demonizing those who were complaining about said villain.

Ultimately, as you have said many times, the answer to bad speech is more speech, not less. The prospective blogger should treat the topic fairly, state the quandry/concern up front, and update to clarify/exonerate if evidence turns up suggesting that it is NOT spouse making the comments.
Kevin • Jun 15, 2012 @8:24 am

I would, depending on the level of craziness and whether that would make it worth the time to blog about independently. Sounds like the odds that it is not Spouse are pretty low. But is it worth your valuable time given all the other outrages that need to be addressed? That would be my main concern.
Squillo • Jun 15, 2012 @8:25 am

I'm in the camp that says blog about it if the putative spouse's comments are germane to the topic and if you would blog about them were there nothing to suggest that Putative Spouse is Actual Spouse. It's certainly worth noting that Putative Spouse is commenting under the name of Actual Spouse, but that you don't know if this is so. I wouldn't bring any of the speculation regarding Actual Spouse's other writings into it.
Paul • Jun 15, 2012 @8:28 am

I think that you ask the question says a lot. There are things that might not be inherently wrong or that others (even a lot of others) might say is absolutely right, but at the end of the day if hitting the Post button makes you feel icky, you probably shouldn't.
Patrick • Jun 15, 2012 @8:29 am

Punishing the family as harshly as the criminal strikes me as positively North Korean, but that's just my opinion.
Xenocles • Jun 15, 2012 @8:34 am

Having people talk about the things you say in public hardly seems like a punishment, Patrick. This is doubly so if your speech was related to the topic at hand.
Joy McCann/Little Miss Attila • Jun 15, 2012 @8:36 am

One option–if one has been pushed hard enough–might be to send the spouse's inflammatory writing to Villain, and ask for either a confirmation or a denial that they were authored by Villainspouse.

If there's no answer 24-48 hours later, that would be telling.

If one hasn't been pushed too hard, leave it. The opposition may be laying a trap, or at the very least might exploit a misstep, should they be in a position to plausibly deny that Villainspouse authored the objectionable material.
kbiel • Jun 15, 2012 @8:38 am

1. Remark only upon those things can be proved as fact. So, Victim and allies points out that someone claiming to be Villain Spouse is making vile comments, but there is no positive evidence to prove the identity. Vague stylistic congruencies are not positive evidence in my book.

2. Nothing more needs to be remarked upon as long as Villain Spouse (regardless of authenticity) is not contributing to the situation in any way beyond insults, regardless of the grievous nature of the insults. Unless and until Villain Spouse writes something that is germane to the on-going squabble, Villain Spouse should be ignored.
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @8:50 am

Even if the identity of the person was not a speculative point, would making comments (no matter how off center they are) in support of one's spouse be worthy of response? If we separated the two persons, and were to talk about a random supporter of the villain, would it garner the same attention? I guess it would be the context of the blog you were to write. I also would test wether you might expect the same response from a reasonable person if they felt their spouse was being openly attacked.
Scott Jacobs • Jun 15, 2012 @8:58 am

I am torn.

As a Significant Other who frequently says Unfortunate Things in the midst of a dispute online between some fucking bastard and my girlfriend, I should suggest that the Spouse be left out.

But, in the same light, interjecting oneself as Spouse has – or appears to have done – should indeed make one fair game.

If, in your mind Ken, you have come to believe it is more likely to be The Spouse (as opposed to Someone Impersonating Spouse) then I think you should blog about it.

If The Couple wished to not have the Spouse involved, then Spouse should have not gone and posted nutty, Godwinizing things.

Also, I suspect you would write something really fucking funny, and my entertainment is more important than Spouse's level of Butthurt.

Addendum: You know who'd write about a spouse without considering issues of fairness? The Nazis…
Jonathan Kamens • Jun 15, 2012 @9:03 am

I've just got to say that I wish there were a "Like" button for comments on this blog. Some of the comments are LOL funny, and others are quite insightful. I've always enjoyed. It just the writing on the blog itself but also the quality of the commentary.
Grifter • Jun 15, 2012 @9:17 am

I think it's perfectly fair, both to bring up the person's possible posts, and their other crazy. If the spouse (and I'll defer to how everyone's been doing it so far and assume it's a 'she' for the purpose of pronouns) contacts and says she didn't write it, then you can edit the post to reflect that: "Update: Jane Smith contacted me and said she didn't post the Godwins. I believe her, so I retract my comparison of her to a fraveling bandersnatch".

I'm not speculating or cracking wise on who it is (my first posts on here annoyed Patrick, I don't want to annoy Ken too), but reading your hypothetical, I tried to think of a real-world example of people, and how I'd feel about it. The first I thought of were Jim Carrey and his (former, according to Wikipedia) partner, Jenny McCarthy. If JC was being a douchnozzle, and JM appeared to have jumped to his defense with douchery of her own, not only would her douchery come into play, but also her craziness re:vaccinations, at least in my opinion, since they are, after all, a unit unless she speaks out against it; normally, you'd leave her out of the debate out of courtesy, but if she's jumping in, she's made herself part of the problem. Again, though, you still have to be fair, and if she told you she wasn't the one, it would be best to edit to update that. Then you might be a little bit of a dick for bringing up the anti-vaccing nuttery, but not a huge one, really, and it would have been an honest mistake that you corrected as much as it needed correcting.
Dan • Jun 15, 2012 @9:20 am

Nothing wrong with stating the facts and pointing out the possibility of an impostor: "Villain #1 is being mean to Victim. Villain #2 is also being mean to Victim, and is posting as Villain #1's spouse, though I have not verified his/her identity." Let the content of the villainy dictate the commentary, and make the identity issue an aside. If the identity is revealed and turns into something juicy, you could update or do a whole new post.

My guess is, having read Ken for years, he has already made attempts to positively identify Villain #2.

I had a few crass comments on a blog post of mine that was admittedly worthy of some criticism. The referring email was a likely fraud and the website went back to a highly-respected and accomplished person, someone unlikely to be posting aggressive, jagoff comments on my measly blog. So I sent a Cleveland Browns 1974-style letter through the website contact page with a short link to the comments, and took a screen shot of my snarkiness. I got a response within a day confirming the presence of an impostor.
ShelbyC • Jun 15, 2012 @9:21 am

Perfectly OK. When you post on the internet, under your own name, you invite such attention. If the individual here had posted the smartest comments in the world, she would have reaped the benefits of people saying, holy crap, that lady is the smartest lady in the world. I see no reason that she should be insulated from the downside risk.
Aaron W • Jun 15, 2012 @9:24 am

Honestly, I enjoy this better as a Mad Lib mystery. I'm going to go through Ken's old posts looking for villains, then start Googling for comments by spouses.

Although based on the topic that blew the interwebs' collective mind this week, I'm pretty sure I won't have to search for long.
aDayinMay • Jun 15, 2012 @9:26 am

I think I'm starting from the same place as Jonathan Kamens above, but maybe ending up at a different recommendation.

I suggest that it comes down to what it is you want to blog about. If you want to blog about the Villain and the Villainy thereof, then blog about that. If this defender of Villainy was not (purported to be) the Villain's spouse, would it even be a blip on your radar with regard to this story? I suspect not, so why bother?

I would also point out that even if this person proves relevant to the conversation, I have a hard time seeing how bringing up her other writings is likely to do anything but distract from the issue at hand, as others have observed.

You can't prove conclusively that these posts were written by the same person because they have similar styles, and even if you could, that doesn't mean it's actually the Villain's spouse, AND so what if they is?

The whole thing seems to amount to a lot of effort going into being able to say "Villain's wife said some ranty things in defense of Villainy" instead of "Someone claiming to be Villain's wife said some ranty things in defense of Villainy" and in both cases I find myself coming back to the same reaction: "Ok, …so?".

I infer from the fact that you made this post at all that something about bringing her into all this doesn't sit well with you (which IMO speaks well of your character), so I'd say listen to your gut.
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @9:31 am

Grifter, I believe blogging about Jenny McCarthy would be appropriate in the situation because as a celebrity her expectations to privacy are reduced. In fact a celebrity who said anything in public would do so knowing their words would be up for scrutiny on a public stage. Would the same treatment be moral when applied to a private citizen? I still stand by the fact that if such person made the comments not as the villain's spouse, would it be noteworthy. I also might be bias because if I were repeatedly attacked I am sure my wife could unleash a whole lot of crazy on the internet…
phiguru • Jun 15, 2012 @9:34 am

I agree, in general, with what a lot of others have said here. I think you need to take a selfish approach. What's really in it for Popehat Ken to go after this villain-supporter besides a bit of venting? Do you have something to lose by not defending yourself?

1. Villains sometimes rally gangs of supporters, but they are a bit like a hydra. Attacking a supporter (sockpuppet, spouse, or stranger) may only make them appear as a victim as well and it detracts from the core issue – the Villain.

2. You asking the question makes me think that you already know going after the supporter is unlikely to benefit you and may be an outright poor choice.

3. However, if the supporter is shouting something serious enough that you cannot let it lie OR something that is downright dangerous, then you should consider defending yourself accordingly. That doesn't mean answering everything that hurts your feelings. Godwinizing happens – that doesn't make it worthy of response.

People who read you know that you stand for (among other things) good lawyering, thoughtfulness, free speech, and geeky allusions in the workplace. You don't need to bother responding to every personal barb in the 'verse.
Grifter • Jun 15, 2012 @9:35 am

Christ, Spouse may or may not be a "celebrity" (since we don't know who it is), but:

"In the course of attempting to determine whether those comments are actually by Villain's Spouse, bloggers locate other content Spouse has authored on the web."

They have put these things in the public domain. We're not talking journal entries here, we're talking public comments.
Dan • Jun 15, 2012 @9:45 am

@Grifter: I think Ken's concern (feel free to correct me here) rests in the Popehat readership getting the coordinates of the snark-worthy Villain Spouse content and then lambasting it accordingly. There's tons of loony toon stuff on the internet worthy of criticism, but Ken may not want the magnifying lens on that Spouse's stuff needlessly. It may be distracting from the core issue of the original villainy and/or bring a bunch of criticism to an otherwise innocent party, someone who merely committed the crime of posting nutty stuff on the web and unfortunately may have had her name misappropriated.
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @10:04 am

I think it can be construed comments made by the villain's spouse being used for the purpose of a blog topic is nothing more than a shot across the bow of the villain. Unless the spouse is in fact party to the villainy. If in fact the person make such comments are so off kilter, I would assume that they would not need response anyways. If we begin blogging about specific person's comments that would take us down an endless path of craziness.
Aaron W • Jun 15, 2012 @10:15 am

OK, having found [redacted by Aaron]'s comments in question, along with Ken's attempt to verify [redacted]'s identity, I'd have to say [redacted]'s comments and other internet posts are bizarre but not particularly germane to the topic at hand.

It was a terribly entertaining diversion, though! [Redacted]'s YouTube video is spectacular.

Bottom line: [Redacted] is a certifiable nutcase. I'm not sure how that reflects on the villain in question, but armchair psychologists would have a field day with it.
Linus • Jun 15, 2012 @10:24 am

Honestly, after reading the Spouse's comments, I felt kind of bad for the Villain. I mean, Villain has a job that Villain's not particularly good at, Villain conducts villainself like a thug, and then Villain has to go home to the crazy. I say, be the better Villain.

This is hard without personal pronouns.
Chris • Jun 15, 2012 @10:29 am

I also think based on Ken's last bold typeset statement we should be discussing this based not on one person who you may perceive to be the model for this discussion, but on a general idea of his statements. This would be helpful for the actual topic so that it would pertain to all future and past cases of villain's spouses.
JRM • Jun 15, 2012 @10:29 am

I agree with Jonathan Kamens and Angela; there should be leeway given Spouse, but not a total free pass. Even if Spouse had (hypothetically) posted repeatedly and strangely and attempted to intersperse herself, it's normally a distraction to go pound Spouse into the floor.

But there's a limit. At some point, agitating sufficiently raises the profile enough to bring the whole thing in. So I'd suggest a high bar for entry, thus making comfortable making Spouse total fair game if they've met that bar.

(BTW, I think the conjecture paragraph was a plus. It was designed to prevent discussion of the, ah, totally unknown hypothetical case which would open up the worm can in a way that would moot the initial question. I mean, I know that after Abraham Lincoln became a vampire hunter, Mary Todd Lincoln's internet posts on the subject became weird. But if we discuss all that weirdness here and slap around MTL, then Ken can't put the worms back in the can.)
Rand • Jun 15, 2012 @10:34 am

Respond to the user name. That's the identity of _someone_ and that someone has decided to throw their hat in the ring. Whether or not it's the spouse shouldn't effect a response to the points and words said. Morally, respond. However, do not infer, do not insinuate, do not respond to unsaid statements, including a relationship or not with the Villian. It should be sufficient to respond to the comments actually said, no matter if they accuse one of pedarasty, neo-nazism, or catholicism.

There's no moral question about defending oneself, or commenting/attacking someone's words, when that someone has declared themselves on the other side, and by exercising their voice, has openly declared themselves an active participant in the… discussion. By all means, call them to task.

Now… Whether it's a good idea, that's a different question. Responding to Crazy can be dangerous. Crazy is, rather definitionally, unpredictable and prone to do things out of proportion to… well anything. So be careful.
Ken • Jun 15, 2012 @10:38 am

Responding to Crazy can be dangerous.

Gosh, you don't say. I'd ask you to expand, but I need to talk to my managing partner about the latest fax to him from an apparent attorney in another state, who accused me of being a child molester and who in her most recent fax talks about guns and interprets advertisements on the internet as malicious messages from me.
SPQR • Jun 15, 2012 @11:23 am

I saw the same stuff and decided to ignore it.
Rand • Jun 15, 2012 @11:28 am

It sounds like you know crazy, but here's my (new) definition for crazy: http://www.buzzfeed.com/hgrant/this-is-what-crazy-looks-like-via-text-messaging

But morally speaking, I fail to see the problem with taking someone at face, and responding to them in kind. Their relationship to someone is irrelevant.
Grifter • Jun 15, 2012 @12:01 pm

Having found some variety of links relating to another issue I won't discuss that gave me a different perspective on your original hypothetical characterization, I would like to amend my comment a bit.

If the Spouse's comments are straight nutty (as opposed to hurtful nutty like McCarthy), it might not be relevant to bring them up in say, a short piece, because it's not further villainy, just crazy. But if you're going to devote wordspace of a decent size to the issue, I still think it's relevant if mildly ancillary, particularly if it can be related to the type of villainy (I'd give an example based on the most-oft-talked about First Degree complaint, but I again am trying very hard not to even seem to be violating Ken's Decree). You might be kind as you do it, like to say "Spouse appears to have come to Villain's defense. If it is her and not a troll, she's doing a terrible and offensive job of it. But considering [crazy], her mindset may not be the best".

Her crazy might actually be her defense for her awful comments, just like we don't generally get too mad at paranoid schizophrenics spouting about Jews, tinfoil hats, and Lizard People (and timecubes…).
eddie • Jun 15, 2012 @2:05 pm

If you want to talk about Villain's villainy, do that.

If you want to talk about Spouse's nuttiness, do that. But why would you?

If you want to talk about Spouse's posts regarding the Villain, do that. But would you be talking about them if they came from someone else? Does the (presumed) fact that they came from Spouse make them worthy of commentary?

Whatever you talk about becomes the important part of the conversation. I would expect that the important part is Villain and his Villainy. Anything else is a sideshow, and indulging in it is a distraction and a losing move.

The question of whether the posts defending Villain *actually* came from Spouse is even more of a distraction, and the matter of trying to round up "evidence" that it is or is not actually her by looking for examples of her other writing is a distraction *upon* a distraction.
AlphaCentauri • Jun 15, 2012 @4:14 pm

I agree with the folks that feel the fact that your asking for our opinion tells you that you aren't comfortable with writing it. There are lots of trolls making crazy comments on lots of blogs, and they don't need extra attention. The fact that he/she is really the spouse of the villain should not cause us to conclude any opinions he/she expresses are directly approved by the villain or even reflect the villain's point of view. He/She was crazy enough to marry a villain and may have serious difficulties dealing with the negative publicity the villain is receiving. Just be happy you're not in a marriage like theirs.
strech • Jun 15, 2012 @4:31 pm

I suspect I've run across comments of the possible spouse Ken refers to. (I hope so, otherwise there's a crazy possible spouse epidemic going on). And, indeed, they are crazy.

But so are newspaper comments; although they're generally not this crazy, they do reach the level and that doesn't make them relevant, because it's random person x making the comments. They become noteworthy when it's comments by someone relevant to the issue or someone in a position of power, even relative power. I don't think mere identity as "possible spouse" qualifies, especially as the villainy in question is not really any sort of family matter.

If the primary villian brings the spouse into the matter, or the spouse takes a significant public role (giving press interviews, or taking or plausibly threatening action of some sort against the victim figure beyond crazy internet comments), then I think possible spouse becomes a relevant figure.

Possible spouse would also be relevant if the crazy/villainy was a directly family related matter, such as the Jenny McCarthy / Jim Carrey anti-vaccination issue mentioned before.
John David Galt • Jun 15, 2012 @7:47 pm

If Spouse wants to post publicly under her real name, s/he is fair game to be talked about.

However, under the circumstances described, I would first attempt to contact Spouse and ask "Are you really the person who wrote these comments?" with pointers to the most outrageous examples. And if no response comes, I'd continue using disclaimers that it might have been an impersonator, as you have done here.
Sarahw • Jun 15, 2012 @9:16 pm

Well,everyone loves the Oatmeal and nobody takes the nasty remarks of sock/sockspouse/spouse seriously to begin with. Step over the little beastie as if it were not there. Villian is Villian and im beginning to think kooky without respect to anything sock/spouse says.
perlhaqr • Jun 15, 2012 @9:28 pm

I dunno. I tend to get into fights on the internet. My wife is smart enough to not involve herself in them.

If my wife got into fights on the internet (which, let's face, it, she's probably smart enough to not do in the first place), I might well involve myself in them, because hey, I'm the sort of person who gets into fights on the internet.

I'm pretty sure my choosing to involve myself in that makes me a legitimate target.
Laurie • Jun 15, 2012 @10:09 pm

A lot depends on the specific circumstances, imo.

Initially, I was inclined to say that villainy often operates partly by surrounding itself with like-minded people and/or by attempting to normalize it's behavior in the population at large, and that therefore the people around Villain, including adult family members, are fair game for ridicule if they are rationalizing Villain's behavior in regards to the villainous act (for example- people who comment that victims "got what they deserved" are usually fair game for verbal crucifixion imo, even if they say it in the heat of the moment on behalf of a loved one).

But then I started thinking that it could be the case that Person Who Might Be Villain's Spouse is not just eccentrically nutty, but actually truly clinically nutty. In which case Person Who Might Be Villain's Spouse is not responsible for his or her behavior.

In that case, not only would it be kindest just to ignore Person Who Might Be Villain's Spouse, but ragging on him or her might actually make me feel a bit sorry not only for him or her, but also even for Villain, which I really wouldn't want to do, since Villain by definition is a victimizing dirtbag.

All in all, I'd be inclined to this person alone and just continue to pile on Villain instead.
BebeTaian • Jun 15, 2012 @10:18 pm

For the most part, leave Spouse out of it unless Villain or Spouse makes themselves a centre of the subject at hand. Spouses do and say nutty things to defend their S/Os (regardless of whether they actually agree, or they agree in public and fight about it when no one is watching). Whatever Spouse says, Spouse is responsible for 100%, it's true- BUT the question is whether or not Spouses' comments are a detraction from the real issue. Keep the Villain at the centre otherwise. Spouse may or may not be worth mentioning in passing, but do not allow either one to gain sympathy.

That being said, given that the Spouse is generally nutty anyways, I'd keep the evidence that whatever is being said (provided that it is actually defamatory or otherwise harmful) and evidence of said nuttiness on hand in a folder somewhere, in case it becomes an issue. This is something you might want to do screencaps for in case the Internet Wayback Machine doesn't retain a copy. You don't want crazy people getting legit lawsuits or other issues started. Crazy people cannot help being crazy, but you need to defend yourself from crazy before it causes problems for you and yours.

The fact that you're having reservations about writing at all makes me wonder if you should do a two or three day "time out" on the subject before trying to review it again, if at all possible.
Laurie • Jun 15, 2012 @10:41 pm

r.e. my previous comment:

Aw man, too late. It occurs to me that in amongst the evidence of Spouse's possible clinical nuttiness, there might be evidence that Villain's hold on mental health isn't exactly the best ever either, and now I do indeed kinda feel sorry for him/her…. sigh. Empathy is such a bummer sometimes.
Rich Rostrom • Jun 15, 2012 @11:49 pm

Spouse has intervened in support of Villain's villainy. That makes Spouse fair game. Spouse has published the other material on the Net. That makes the other material fair game as well.

I see no problem at all with exposing the other material to ridicule.

"It goes to credibility" as they say on the lawyer shows.
Chris • Jun 16, 2012 @12:53 am

Rich, we have no conformation that said person is actually the spouse of the villain as stated in Ken's parameters. I would be wary of supporting that spouse is a complete crackpot based on comments that may or may not be their own. If in fact they are not spouse's remarks then we have caused spouse undo harm just because villain is an asshat. Even with conformation, do supportive remarks of one's significant other make you party to their villainy? If we can't settle identity of spouse, even if previous writings are complete LSD laced diatribes, should we use spouse's bat shit craziness against villain?
Drew • Jun 16, 2012 @4:10 am

Unrelated to your query, but I wanted to second what Johnathan Kamens said above about the quality of the comments on Popehat. While I'm not much for engaging in discussions online, I often click through to the post pages here to see if there's any additional insight or information in the comment thread. That can't be said for the comments section for many of the blogs I read.
Sarahw • Jun 16, 2012 @6:26 am

Chris, no, not unless they matter, unless they are having some genuine, material effect on the controversy. They aren't. They might even be mere trolling, but if from spouse, still have as much weight as soap bubbles.
Lucas • Jun 16, 2012 @9:34 am

I imagine this is an extreme stress situation for Villain and Spouse. All future earnings of Villain are at stake. I think they'll be mostly ok, but at this point, it's probably very hard for them to realize that. They may think that they're fighting for their own survival, and therefore must take extreme measures.

I think exposing Spouse more may cause this behavior to intensify. It it is very likely to be even more entertaining, but I think no greater good would come out of it.

Pointing out the weakness in Villain's behavior is great: it may cause some other would-be villains to not commit the same acts. It may show victims of such behavior that they can defend themselves against actions like Villain's. I think blogging about Spouse won't prevent other spouses from defending villains and it may induce more irrational behavior in this particular situation.
AlphaCentauri • Jun 16, 2012 @12:29 pm

Why humiliate her, when she's doing so well on her own?
D.J. • Jun 17, 2012 @6:12 am

I would say: blog about what you know.

You know that someone purporting to be Villain's Spouse is posting questionable material.

You know that Villain's Spouse has authored material making it plausible that Spouse has authored the questionable material.

You know that you are not sure that Spouse has authored the material.

You know that, if Spouse is not the author, Villain and Spouse, as well as you, have an interest in finding out who is authoring the material.

You know what effects you want to have on the situation. Perhaps what you want to have happen would be better served by silence than by publicity.

My opinion: it would be ethically fine to blog about this, provided you make clear what you know and what you don't know. Tactically/strageically is an entirely different matter; one that you did not ask about, and one which I am sure you are considering as well.
Chris • Jun 17, 2012 @6:01 pm

To revisit this… If spouse is indeed shown to be the person commenting and then joins forces will villain to create a swirling vortex of evil, blog it.
Hershele Ostropoler • Jun 18, 2012 @2:54 pm

The only relevance them being married has, I think, is that they're more likely to be working in concert, or, at least, Villain has a better shot at getting Spouse to cut that shit out.

So if it would be ethical if it were an unconnected third party, it's ethical if it's Spouse, and in fact it's probably ok if it's Spouse regardless.
Curious • Jun 19, 2012 @3:27 am

I would say that discussing the spouse's works online with only the strict purpose to ridicule lends to more problems. Now if the villain had participated actively in the site enough to lend a reasonable belief that their spouse's beliefs, and site was accepted and the villain then I would guess that its relevance in discussing it should only matter in context of the villain's litigation issue (i.e. claims of copyright infringement yet has copyrighted files illegally shared on spouse's site)

I am wondering then if in the case of the villain's spouse presence on various news articles' comments section should only be discussed if the validity of their identity is concrete and whether or not their comments raise further questions the way the copyrighted material on spouse's website might. So if the comments are defaming in nature I suppose that discussion of comments should really only be in terms of possible legal action that might be able to take place, or how these kind of comments can affect the villain even if not uttered by him. For instance if they share a reasonable amount of views on various subjects would it be fair to say that the spouse's views might reflect how the villain believes? I personally would be interested in the legal ramifications of when a spouse essentially goes crazy (in terms of can the defendant possibly sue the spouse for defamation), how does a spouse's comments affect the villain when they are married etc.

Ultimately I definitely agree with erring on the side of caution as the website itself is not worth discussing unless there is a large presence of the villain on the site (and said presence brings up interesting questions, concerns etc) as for the comments as others have said, with how easy it is to create accounts or sockpuppets unless said identity can be confirmed I would not comment or discuss on them.
flip • Jun 19, 2012 @4:04 am

If you're commenting on the woman's behaviour just to make fun of the man, then no. That's poisoning the well. You can always comment about her on her own anyway though, as a separate example of bad behaviour. Related or not, she's still making someone a victim. And I don't see it as a distraction, because to the victim, the totality of the people/behaviour victimising you is what matters, not part of it.

I think also if you make it clear that it doesn't matter who the actual author of the comments are and that you're taking issue with the content, it makes it more about criticising bad behaviour than about the people doing it. Otherwise it's like anonymous harassing phone calls or emails or blog comments can be considered 'off limits' from criticism as if they have no responsibility to be civil. Act as if there are no ties, suspected or confirmed, between the two; if it warrants discussion anyway, then I say discuss it.

I agree with the first comment (by Jonathan Kamens) and Grifter's when he talks about responding to villainy rather than just plain crazy.

Popehat

Authors

The Popehat Forum

Our Generous Blogrolling Policy

Bloggers

Adoption Links

Blogging Ethics Bleg: Right or Wrong?

Last 5 posts by Ken White

72 Comments

Subscribe to Comments

Twitface

Search

Quote of the month

Latest Posts

Recent Comments

Past Posts By Month

Posts By Category

Products And Charities Of Which We Approve, Yet From Which We Make Not One Thin Dime

Sundry