Famed Anonymous Anti-Palin Blogger 'Outed' by Lawmaker

An Alaskan state legislator revealed in his constituent e-newsletter Friday the identity of an anonymous local blogger who was made famous by her criticisms of Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign season.

Mudflats blogger "Alaska Muckraker" (AKM) rose to blogger fame almost instantaneously when Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was tapped to be John McCain's running mate, and the then anonymous blogger wrote "What is McCain Thinking? One Alaskan's Perspective" under the penname AKM. Little was known about Palin in the lower 48, and AKM provided a much-needed window throughout the campaign season into Palin's performance as governor of Alaska from a progressive viewpoint.

AKM earned the ire of Alaska Representative Mike Doogan (LD-25) of Anchorage (who happens to be a writer by trade) when AKM wrote a blog post about a rude email that Doogan sent to his constituents. He had saved up all of the emails from constituents on the Troopergate issue, and in December he responded to all of them at once, CC'ing a list of about thirty perfect strangers together in one email, telling them,

Are you people nuts? You send me -- and everybody else in the legislature, from the looks of things -- Spam and then lecture me on email etiquette -- as if there were such a thing? Here's an etiquette suggestion: Abandon your phony names, do your own thinking and don't expect everybody to share your obsessions.

[Yes, that is the actual response that Doogan sent to his constituents.]

AKM posted Doogan's own words on the Mudflats blog along with an enumerated list of the basic rules of netiquette.

In the same email, just above the entry broadcasting AKM's identity, Doogan (who was a print columnist for 14 years and currently writes mystery novels) inveighed against the Alaska Press Club giving an award to the author of a widely read email and then fulminated against newspapers cutting the jobs of real newsmen. Then, with one short paragraph, Doogan brought AKM and her family into the public eye,

Anonymous Blogger Anonymous No More


The identity of the person who writes the liberal Democratic Mudflats blog has been secret since the blog began, protected by the Anchorage Daily News, among others. My own theory about the public process is you can say what you want, as long as you are willing to stand behind it using your real name. So I was interested to learn that the woman who writes the blog is Anchorage resident [redacted].


Best wishes,

Mike

The entire email is currently on the front page of the Alaska House Democratic Legislators website under "Extra! Extra! Newspapers and Bloggers Edition; Biased? Who? The Alaska Press Club?; A Treatise On A Newspaper Crusade; Anonymous Blogger Anonymous No More."

AKM says she received a terse email Thursday putting her on notice,

I am reliably told that you are the anonymous blogger who writes Mudflats. I am planning to reveal this in the enews I send to my constituents tomorrow, and am writing to let you know this and offer the opportunity to comment.

Doogan did not ask AKM why she wished to remain anonymous, and he offered her no recourse. In a response posted to the Mudflats blog, AKM pointed out,

It said in my "About" page that I choose to remain anonymous. I didn't tell anyone why. I might be a state employee. I might not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I might alienate my best friend. Maybe I don't feel like having a brick thrown through my window. My spouse might work for the Palin administration. Maybe I'd just rather people not know where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be true. None of my readers, nor Mike Doogan had any idea what my personal circumstances might be.

Ironically, Doogan got her last name wrong, according to AKM's response on Mudflats. The Alaska Dispatch points out that AKM submitted a letter-to-the-editor in 2007 in which she used what AKM says is her current last name as a middle name, and used the surname that Doogan named. [Although AKM had her identity listed on the Mudflats "About Us" page for a short while last night, I am not using any name here because AKM has since removed all mentions of her real name from the Mudflats pages.]

Phil Munger of Progressive Alaska posted an email exchange between him and Doogan from December in which Doogan tries to get Munger to spill the beans about AKM's identity. In the email exchange, Doogan says,

I think that if blogging might be detrimental to the "professional and/or business situation" of the person writing Mudflats, then he/she shouldn't be doing it. But even if it is, are your arguing that it's okay for people to stand in the shadows and shout into the public debate? What next? Hoods and torches?

Others have described Doogan as "obsessed" with AKM's identity and "rabid" about the issue of anonymous political discourse. Another Mudflats blogger points out,

This may be the first known case of an anonymous blogger being cyber-stalked by a politician...

Many locals believe that Doogan is secretly the identity behind former local blogger Billy Muldoon, but Doogan has categorically denied any connection to Muldoon. In fact, Doogan has consistently expressed vitriol toward new media and what he sees as the death of real journalism.

Doogan has been quick to make hyperbolic comparisons between the anonymity of AKM and the anonymity of the KKK, drawing not-so-subtle historical parallels between the anonymous post-Civil War editorials of the KKK's original Grand Cyclops. He has also mentioned "hoods and torches" in several emailed responses to constituents who voiced concerns about the 'outing' of AKM.

No doubt Doogan feels vindicated by outing this anonymous blogger -- someone associated with a media form that is taking the jobs of his colleagues, someone whose work is lesser in his mind than the print journalists of yore. Doogan says that AKM gave up her right to anonymity when her blog began influencing public policy, but America also has a rich tradition of anonymous political commentary -- so much so that the framework of our country was shaped by anonymous political prose.

AKM herself points out that Ben Franklin penned a series of letters under the penname Silence Dogood, a character he created that was so vivid and realistic that men sent marriage proposals to the New England Courant where Dogood's letters were often published.

Common Sense, a pamphlet often credited with igniting the American Revolution, was published anonymously by Thomas Paine and became a best seller both in America and in Europe despite its anonymity. The jacket on the copy I pulled from my own bookshelf says,

The United States of America owes its existence in part to the incendiary brilliance of the work....Common Sense's arguments were accessible to nearly every colonial reader, empowering most colonists to confront the daunting challenges they faced.

Founding fathers Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay published 85 letters in colonial newspapers under the name "Plubius" urging the ratification of the United States Constitution. These anonymous letters are now know as the Federalist Papers and are often used by the United States Supreme Court to interpret the United States Constitution.

A few years ago, former head of the CIA Osama bin Laden Unit Michael Scheuer became a heroic whistleblower of the Bush administration when he anonymously published Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.

Some anonymous politicos work on a smaller scale but make important waves within their domain. Just a few weeks ago, a handful of young men had the Arizona Democratic Party in an uproar after they published a plan to revitalize the state party anonymously because they worried that their young ages would hamper discourse. Their anonymity ignited paranoia among the party's powerful elite, with every party hack looking askance at each other until the authors revealed their identities.

Not only has the U.S. Supreme Court used the anonymous Federalist Papers to interpret the Constitution, the Court has also repeatedly upheld the right to anonymous speech as part of the right to free speech. After all, truly free speech is free from political retribution, economic sanction, and physical threat. Sometimes speaking out anonymously is the only way a person can speak freely.

As AKM pointed out, no one knows her personal situation or the reasons that she wished to remain anonymous. Some have speculated that her anonymity protected the financial well-being of her family. Whatever the reason, it is evident that this is a serious matter for AKM who now says that will take some time away from Mudflats while she reassesses how her life will change.

Doogan would do well to remember that, although he is a mystery novel writer, he is not a detective in real life, and this was one mystery that should have gone unsolved. New media is replacing traditional media regardless of whether Mudflats continues to exist or not. Taking down one blogger -- or even thousands of bloggers -- will not bring back your dying newspaper industry.

Comments

[duchessofdork]

One of the reasons I love Mudflats is that it is very fair with cited references. A lot of sites are full of blowviating, but AKM is very careful to have civilized, adult blog posts.

Rock on, AKM!

[2008CaliforniaFan]

There's some nice cartons of Doogan here.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_hWAVXHNngbk/SdG2iMjrgDI/AAAAAAAADv4/-FYMbuMJmZA/s400/Doodie2.jpg

[MonaLisa65]

That cartoon is WAY too flattering.

[MonaLisa65]

You meant this, I think:
http://progressivealaska.blogspot.com/2009/03/doogan-beginning-to-inspire-alaska-art.html

[nicole473]

Ha ha.........great one!! :)

[duchessofdork]

Those were great! Thanks!

[Ennealogic]

It is not exactly true to claim that AKM was publishing "anonymously." Mudflats was written by someone who went by the name "AKMuckraker" and over the course of a year people who frequented the blog got to know "AKMuckraker" quite well. What AKM's real name was, was irrelevant. The blogger posted so often and in the same voice, that readers had more than enough information to judge for ourselves where AKM was coming from, and how valid AKM's points and posts were. AKM kept an e-mail account, allowed comments on the blog, and even arranged for a separate forum open to anyone who cared to visit. This is not anonymity. This is community-building and accountability. I think it is this very reason -- AKM's validity and popularity -- that gave Doogan the notion that this voice must be made to pay somehow.

This is far different than someone doing a 'hit and run' with no thread to tie him/her to anything else for reference.

But even those who do 'hit and run' commenting are entitled to do so without their identities being hunted and discovered and then broadcast via an elected official's constituents newsletter.

What happens next in this story is of tremendous importance to each of us.

[nicole473]

I hope that AKM will go with legal action against Doogan. I agree that what happens next is of the utmost importance to each of us.

[formerprosecutor]

The slippery slope is very clear here; if any government official uses his/her office to find and intimidate "voices" , regardless the media of the voice, we are all in danger.

[IvyShoots]

If you need it explained, why "outing" this person served no useful purpose except intimidati­on/retalia­tion for exercising free speech, all you have to do is go to this link and get a taste of what her life has been like for the past few days:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2217069/posts

It's not very pretty, but Free Republic never is. They posted a link to a museum store they BELIEVE is hers, and suggest flooding it with fake orders. Classy.

My favorite post, in its entirety: "'Here's an etiquette suggestion: [quoting Doogan's email] Abandon your phony names, do your own thinking and don't expect everybody to share your obsessions.

I like it!"

The author of the post applauding abandoning phony internet names? Nick Carraway! LOL

[formerprosecutor]

Theis blogger needs to file a complaint with "Justice" allegeding a violation of "1983".
And get a civil rights attorney ASAP

[jhutz]

Huh? There is no constitutional right to anonymity. Further, it greatly reduces the value of your message. Anonymous press sources are bad enough as the public "has a right to know" the motivations of those who leak information. Anonymous press writers are just a joke.

On the one hand bloggers want to be counted as "real" journalists, but on the other hand, they don't want any responsibility for fact checking, editing, and don't think they should be held for libel. By inserting yourself into a public, political debate, you give up your right to privacy. Free speech is free as in unlimited - not as in without cost.

The reasons that he federalist papers were published anonymously as "Publius" (not "Plubius" as you state) were that there were 3 people writing them as one effort and they wished to remove the politics of who represented who from the discussion.

[formerprosecutor]

Your opinion iis not shared by SCOTUS

[formerprosecutor]

" they wished to remove the politics of who represented who from the discussion."

So, tell me why this doesn't apply to comments and "bloggers"; private citizens (?)



Whether "real, press- pass- carrying journalists; writers, "bloggers", commenters, "letter- to- the editor- writers" or essayists; they are all private citizens (first) and have a Constitutional right to their opion. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that anonymous works are as protected from government censure through intimidation or threat or any act the same as "signed " speech.
a nom de plume or nom de guerre does not affcet the protection on single itty bitty bit.

[antifluff]

Many "bloggers" use their blogs to cast st0nes at public people and their families. If you want to address ideas, fine. If you use blogging to post citizens private information...turn about is fair play. This person had the opportunity to explain why & if this information should be kept secret. They did not do so. There are many people in this country that are f e a r ful of the mob mentality being encouraged in this society. It seems many people are demanding the "right" to limit others' freedoms, assuming, "their" freedom will not be comprimised. If you would not want someone to tell you what you "must" do, then do not support legislation that will tell others what they "must" do.

[MelRoy]

Ah, but there is. Upheld by the Supreme Court several times over.

[formerprosecutor]

s/he has been told that time and again if they had read the earlier posts

[jtmoney]

had it not been for an anomyous source, we would have never heard about Nixon's tapes.

[anarmyofnone]

The existence of Nixon's tapes was revealed by Alexander Butterworth during sworn testimony before a Congressional committee. Hardly anonymous.

[unstuffedshirt]

I'm really, really going to enjoy watching Doogan go down in court.

[formerprosecutor]

Lay out the players and the facts ; and leave journalism out of this for the time being.

Doogan is a representative of the government
The blogger is a private citizen that wishes to remain anonymous for whatever reason is important to her.
The government via Doogan was disturbed by her speech
The government via doogan used it's resources , time, to put a stop to her speech. how do we know this: because he objected to her attacks on the Gov; he knew she wanted to remain anonymous; and thought that if he exposed her identity it would stop her speech through harm to her
the government via Doogan then contacted her before her exposed her to (?) taunt her , cause fear and any other consequences.
Therefore, the government via Doogan sought to chill, prohibit, prevent criticism of the Government and cause harm to an individual that spoke out against the government
sounds like a "1983' case to me!
I hope the ACLU is paying attention

[formerprosecutor]

In addition, Doogan would not enjoy "qualified immunity" which provides immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law.
But that immunity is limited to individuals performing tasks as part of the government, but only "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

[nicole473]

Nice job!

[dtghope]

MIke Doogan is the Alaskan Dick Cheney.

These people are prepared to expose the hidden identify of CIA operatives, endangering their lives, so outing anyone else is par for their course.

Stalin would be proud.

[formerprosecutor]

And worse in this case; this person was a private citizen utlizing theri Constitutional right to free speech.

[trollslayer]

Why are you penning this story?

Palin is finished and this blogger should be left alone.

[TheRubberRoomHotel]

The blogger was outed by Doogan because he got his panties all in a not about the blogger exposing Doogans failings. Palin is still the GOV of Alaska and is still making incredible stupid moves.

[2Dank2Hit]

I think to be fair, having the manner of an investigative journalism that the blog in question has, there is reason to want to know who exactly is doing the investigating so the objectivity of their revelations can be established. There's a difference between you know, advocating an idea or policy - such as was the case with the federalist papers - and making factual claims. If Jerome Corsi or Aaron Klein were hidden by anonymity I'm sure we'd all be singing a different tune...

[NYHawk]

The blogger in question -- Mudflats -- is NOT an "investigative" journalist, or any other kind of journalist. So the entire premise of your argument is fatally flawed. The blogger in question is a private citizen. And private citizens In the USA have the absolute right to blog anonymously. See the US Constitution, First Amendment.

Also, your claim that "there is reason to want to know" is not the same as having the right to know. There is no right to know the identify of anybody who chooses to blog anonymously, just because you are curious about the person's identity.

Please read all about the First Amendment, especially the US Supreme Court cases that have interpreted it. When you do you will realize that what Doogan did violated the blogger in question's constitutional right to blog anonymously.

[2Dank2Hit]

When the US Supreme Court says "The first Amendment protects your right to anonymously say anything you want whenever you want" I might believe you.

You make it sound like the 'outing' was done to satisfy simple curiosity; well that's absolute rubbish. If Corsi was hiding behind anonymity, publishing smear after smear after poorly researched smear about Obama, you'd have an army ready to burn WND's headquarters down.

As it pertains to your initial volley, where did I say she /was/ an investigative journalist (formal title)? "Having the manner of..." is rather different, you do your realize, than "being that which you have the manner of".

[GregorZap]

Objectivity is measured by content, not by the identity of the author. If a piece is objective, it is objective regardless of who wrote it. Suggesting that the author needs to be known to judge whether the piece is impartial suggests that no partisan could ever have an objective opinion. This is a proposition that insists everything be viewed through partisan eyes and prevents trust from ever developing. A sad commetary on our perceptions of each other.

[formerprosecutor]

so, to nutshell your comments; no anonymous sppech has value.

is that correct ?

[stella801]

This is the Radio station link that did the Shannyn Moore interview about AKM and what has happened.

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/asithappens/20090330-aih-1.wmv

Hopefully, they have since published a podcast and you won't have to listen to the first 20 minutes before you get to the AKM story. Sorry....I'm not very technical, so this is the best I can do.

:0

[HighInfoVoter]

Factual information and logical arguments validate a writer's ideas, not their identity.

Anonymity is a protection that an individual must personally manage. It is used as self-defense for both good and bad reasons. When anonymity gives voice to the benefit of society it should be protected (enlightening the people about abuse of power, for example).

Benefit is subject to debate, however.

[stella801]

Beautifully said.....

Benefit in my mind leans toward that of society. In this case, it was beneficial to both the blogger and society for the ID to remain anonymous. The reading society wins in the end because they read words that have not been pressured, nor scrutinized before publication. They are freely read as they were freely formed on the "page".

We are in a new age and this issue needs to be addressed.

[formerprosecutor]

I agree with you as far as you go; but even if the ideas are stupid ( smile) and make no sense to me; even if they are wrong (snile)
Our Constitution allows even idiots t "protected speech" and the most treasured ois "policitcal speech" Using fear and intimidation to chill that speech is a violation that both sides of the aisle should agree on; you never know when it is YOUR "side" that will silenced (seriously paraphrased Kant)

[PAposter]

How Dare You Sir!

[olddemokrat]

Too bad about Doogan, used to enjoy his stuff. Now his is in "OFFICE" so he is different. Never missed his column in the ADN. But times like people change.

[formerprosecutor]

What concerns me, and I only know what I read (which may or may not be the "whole story"); is that a government offical,an elected official, used government resources to to investigate, harass, intimidate, a private citizen that criticized the government. I actually do think this behavior has a chilling effect on free speech, and is a Constitutional issue.

[HighInfoVoter]

For some reason the words, "seek redress of grievances," comes to mind.

[claypoint2]

Amen.

[gunnerbear]

FP,

Apologies if you think this is a simple question, but given your background, do you think that elected officials are 'fair game' when it comes to comments and opinions published on the Web (or any where else for that matter)?

[formerprosecutor]

I can tell from your spelling (British?) that you may not be a US citizen. and that you find that concept hard to beleive.
But we have a long SCOTUS supported (not to mention Constitutional ) right to critiocize our government offcials as we please as long as it is not a threat of physical harm