-10

In reference to this question: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50064/

Asking for the name of an alleged whistleblower cited in a public record is not "immoral". It's prime to questions of credibility. Perhaps you believe a whistleblower should be granted anonymity and protection. I believe a whistleblower should be granted protection and not anonymity.

Moreover, that kind of moral judgement should be subject to peer-review. We should not be removing questions on this site, above all, because one moderator believes that a question of public record and fact is immoral.

| |
  • 11
  • 2
    It's not doxxing information so that would be totally unrelated. There is absolutely no reasonable expectation of privacy when you make a legal compliant against another person or organization. – Evan Carroll Feb 5 at 14:59
  • 5
    Terminology debate aside, that MSE post is about this exact situation and is thus clearly related. – Rubiksmoose Feb 5 at 15:01
  • 1
  • 1
    @Rubiksmoose How can it be doxxing when the name was said out loud on the floor of the U.S. Senate and is now part of the official Congressional Record of the Senate for every american to see (pg. S824 and S825)? – SurpriseDog Feb 5 at 15:36
  • 1
    Any legal or moral consequences of bringing this name into the public arena fall on the Senator who did so, but I don't see how Stack Exchange can limit public discussion of public testimony given in the United States Senate . – SurpriseDog Feb 5 at 15:37
  • 1
    @SurpriseDog It's not my wording, it is simply the title of the question. Read it, it was written on this exact topic. If you have an issue with the wording, bring it up to that author. – Rubiksmoose Feb 5 at 15:38
  • 7
    Anonymity is a form of protection, and the identity of the whistleblower is completely irrelevant because nothing they said has been used as evidence, it has all been corroborated by other non-anonymous sources. That's the whole point of whistleblowing. Regardless of whether the information is available, spreading it is intended to cause this person harm. – Bryan Krause Feb 5 at 20:19
  • 2
    What's your actual question here? – Dan Scally Feb 6 at 13:05
-7

While the name may have been subject to a media blackout in the past, yesterday a U.S. Senator read the name aloud on the floor of the U.S. Senate during public testimony. That name is now part of the public record, that will be continually stored in the Library of Congress for any U.S. Citizen to read:

https://www.congress.gov/116/crec/2020/02/04/CREC-2020-02-04-senate.pdf (S824 to S825)

According to the previous question on this topic, the whistleblower's name has been protected because it wasn't publicly available, but that is no longer the case. As a new public record, what used to be a semi-secret has now entered the sphere of public discussion and this farcical idea of secrecy can no longer be continued. He alleged that the whistleblower and "Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeachment proceedings."

Any legal or moral consequences of bringing this name into the public arena fall on the Senator who did so, but I don't see how Stack Exchange can limit public discussion of public testimony given in the United States Senate.

While users of the Politics SE, can argue whether or not this outing was just or moral thing to do, the fact remains that the name has been outed and to continue censoring public record, because certain members are offended by it is antithetical to the principles of free speech.

| |
  • 1
    Did the Senator read the name of a private person and provide official corroboration this person is the whistleblower? – Jeff Lambert Feb 5 at 15:49
  • 2
    Also (since that question was asked, but well before Paul's senate question) Trump [re]tweeted the whistleblower's name (and no, it wasn't deleted.) – SX welcomes ageist gossip Feb 5 at 17:26
  • 5
    Re. your comments on free speech; you're performing the classic misattribution of that phrase to the private sphere. The principles of free speech mean that the government cannot jail you for saying something, they do not mean that the community of a public website needs to allow you to say anything at all. – Dan Scally Feb 6 at 13:03
8

As an European I might not really "get" what happens in that one country in the middle of North America. But what I do see is that there appears to be a political faction in that country who wants to do everything to spread the name of a civil servant who has no other political relevance except that he dared to be involved in causing problems to their favorite politician. I can not see any reason why people would do that, except retribution or making a point.

Sorry, but I will not let you turn this site into a partisan battleground.

| |
  • 1
    To research the rumors behind the civil servant... Europeans don't have a use for names and can't understand why their useful... Come on. And then associating me with fine kind of political faction – Evan Carroll Feb 6 at 13:45
  • The point is the name has already been "spread." It's been all over the internet for weeks now. It's been retweeted by the President. It's been spoken on the Senate floor. - Now that it has been spread the question is: "Are we allowed to talk about something that everyone already knows about?" – SurpriseDog Feb 6 at 14:13
  • A US Senator has alleged this whistleblower is involved in a conspiracy with an Adam Schiff staffer to plot the removal of the President. Is this true? Is it just crazy talk? I don't know. We need to be able to discuss it openly to prove or disprove it. – SurpriseDog Feb 6 at 14:22
  • 5
    @SurpriseDog the assertion that everybody already knows about it is blatantly incorrect, given the premise of the question was "Who is the whistleblower". I had no idea who it was (or rather, what their name is. I still have no idea who the named individual is) until I read OP's self-answer. Do not make the mistake of thinking other people are as clued into the topics that you are interested in as you are. Additionally, the idea that an allegation against a whistleblower is sufficient to remove their anonymity is clearly ridiculous; that is effectively saying they should have no anonymity. – Dan Scally Feb 7 at 7:54
6

I for one don't understand how the whistleblower's name is of political relevance. I would be more inclined to give leeway to a question that asked about his political record (one was allowed on Skeptics), but I'm presently having trouble seeing how a good answer can be given even to that given the partial media blackout on the issue.

A more direct question on Skeptics about the whistleblower's identity was edited out by a mod to remove that angle/part.


Since some users might not have the rep to see the mod-deleted (and self-answered) question, omitting the media quotes, it just asked:

Who was the “whistleblower” Rand Paul named in the Senate? [closed]

Who did Rand Paul name? Is this now public record? Can someone provide the transcript with the names bolded?

The question also contained quotes/complaints to the effect that media, even Fox News or Sputnik, are not publishing the name. But the OP also commented that RealClearPolitics did publish it. (There's also a related question here about why journalists are doing that.)

| |
  • 1
    Has there been any official corroboration that whoever the individual is that people are so out to get is the actual whistleblower? Without that, I would think most questions asking about them would be based on speculation. – Jeff Lambert Feb 5 at 15:40
  • @JeffLambert: as far as I know, no to your first question, which is why I have reservations about asking related questions. – SX welcomes ageist gossip Feb 5 at 15:41
  • It's of relevance because a U.S. senator is alleging that the whistleblower and "Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal House impeach-ment proceedings" (pg. s824) While this may be incorrect, the allegation has been publicly made and should be discussed. – SurpriseDog Feb 5 at 15:52
  • @SurpriseDog: the deleted self-answered question here (Evan's) was not about that allegation you mention; it was just asking the whistleblowers name. – SX welcomes ageist gossip Feb 5 at 15:53
  • 3
    @SurpriseDog Just so I understand your position correctly, are you saying that any individual who is named by a Senator on the floor during any debate is fair game for diving into their political affiliations here on this site? I fail to see how any of this is interesting, except for furthering a political vendetta which is what Facebook is for. – Jeff Lambert Feb 5 at 16:19
  • 6
    A question like the second one you mention above clearly comes with an agenda attached. The entire point of asking it is to publicise the information further. It's hard to see it as a genuine question. – TRiG Feb 5 at 17:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .