“Democrat” Representative Mike Doogan just used his constituent email list and a state paid-for “newsletter” from his “Representative_Mike_Doogan@legis.state.ak.us” state paid-for email address to out the identity of Mudflats. Frankly, I would expect this from Meg Stapeton or Bill McCallister, not someone who claims to be a progressive. Mike Doogan has been a wanna-be Dave Barry for years. He mocks election integrity and community involvement. His schmarmy style has been described by his democratic colleagues as “impossible.” 
Doogan wrote: “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.” Well, that’s just it…IT’S YOUR OWN THEORY. Why do we have a lawmaker who wants to hold private citizens to his own theory? He went on: “So I was interested to learn that the woman who writes the blog is Anchorage resident Jeanne…” INTERESTED? That’s a funny adjective to use…he was RABID!
There are reasons for bloggers to remain anonymous. There are really good reasons. Some reasons include differences in family politics. Some reasons include insane ex-husbands or ex-wives. Some reasons include death threats from people who love Sarah. There are millions of anonymous bloggers with millions of reasons.
Mudflat’s reasons are her own. I respected them and her privacy. She’s my friend. I received an avalanche of email when she posted the two of us had coffee one afternoon. The emails wanted to know, “WHO IS MUDFLATS?”
Mudflats is a brilliant writer…something Mike Doogan and his failed novels and “I’m so clever” columns failed to be. Mudflats is someone who pays attention to her world and writes about it. Mudflats lives by her own rules and not those of a Blowhard Ash-hole that makes our volcanoes look weak. Mudflats has done more for the progressive movement in this state and the country than Spenard’s Worst Attention Whore.
Mike Doogan: CONTACT ME
Ph: (907) 465-4998
Or (800) 689-4998
Fax: (907) 465-4419
doogan@akdemocrats.org
Representative_Mike_Doogan@legis.state.ak.us
************UPDATE******************
These are exerpts from an email exchange with Dave (who happened to be at a party with Mudflats last Friday and didn’t know it!)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Rep. Mike Doogan wrote:
“My motivation is: I think the public should know who its is tearing strips off Sarah Palin every day. Not because I’m a big fan of Sarah Palin, but because I don’t believe in anonymity in the political area. It’s too much like people wearing sheets and hoods for my taste.”
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Rep. Mike Doogan wrote:
“No kidding. Me, using my real name, revealing the real name of blogger who has been not been using her real name while attacking real people by name is more like the way the KKK operates? We must have read different history books.”
Read the back and forth in the comments below. Mike Doogan is ridiculous and self-righteous. He is trumping Palin for stupidest politician. Think about it…
SHANNYN MOORE: JUST A GIRL FROM HOMER 
I’m a voter in his district and just sent him an email. I’m sure he is getting swamped if the outrage in the mudflats comment section is any indication, but hopefully I will hear back since I am a constituent.
Are there any good D’s in House District 25 who can be encouraged to run against him?
By: Dave on March 27, 2009
at 12:42 pm
If I had an I Like Mike bumper sticker, I’d burn it in effigy. Even though I don’t live in his district, I’d liked Mike.
Years ago, he let me tag along for a day-in-the-life series I was writing on local reporters for my Jr. High paper. One of the things we discussed during that day was the importance of protecting one’s sources.
I wonder why things are different in this case.
By: Cindy on March 27, 2009
at 12:44 pm
Thank you for standing up for our AKMuckraker. She will need people of your ilk to support her.
Yes We Can
By: Ripley in Ct on March 27, 2009
at 12:48 pm
Thanks Shannyn. I have long been concerned about AKM, and especially since so much about GINO has been on the blogs in the last ten days or so.
By: SoCalWolfGal on March 27, 2009
at 12:55 pm
He has been ticked off ever since we sent him emails back last fall over the Alaskans for Truth.. that’s what started it, She then wrote a post about his dissing everyone and how he treated us all when we asked him to hold SP responsible.
Since then this has been his vendetta, to out her and ruin her life. I hope he is happy now.
By: Annette on March 27, 2009
at 12:55 pm
I got a reply to my first email, and justsent him a second, this one wasn’t so polite and might be a bit smarmy, so I am looking forward to his next reply, if I get one.
By: Dave on March 27, 2009
at 12:56 pm
I don’t hide my identity online, but that’s my choice. If Mudflats wanted to be anonymous, that was her choice. Taking away people’s choices by force — and for no good reason — is what a spoiled child does.
Apparently Douchegan didn’t like the game so he took his ball and ran home to mommy. I wish I lived in his district just to vote him out of office.
Shameful.
By: @jmproffitt on March 27, 2009
at 1:00 pm
AKM needs all the friends she can get. Thanks for being there for her.
By: Connie WhiteheadAKM on March 27, 2009
at 1:12 pm
AKM made her reputation by being credible and insightful. It is a shame that Mike Doogan choose to do this. No doubt it will cost Doogan politically which is too bad, because some of his ideas are pretty good. I hope Doogan’s actions do not lead to a cessation of AKMs good work. What a shame!
By: CityKid on March 27, 2009
at 1:13 pm
I am appalled. I was also on the Doogan e-mail hit list and I was struck by his arrogance and strong interest in knowing EXACTLY who everyone was. (I signed my name, and gave my address, by the way, so was especially insulted at his “reply all” stinker.
By: the problem child on March 27, 2009
at 1:17 pm
I write at Conservatives 4 Palin and probably disagree with just about everything here and at Mudflats, but I think Doogan’s actions here were beyond the pale.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 1:20 pm
If there is any sort of petition of public censure being passed around, count me in.
By: 0whole1 on March 27, 2009
at 1:28 pm
I guess Mike Doogan has never heard of “The Federal Papers” and a group of authors who wrote anonymously under the pseudonym of Publius. Those anonymous writers had no small part in getting the United States Constitution ratified. Writing anonymously is a tradition stretching back as far as written language itself.
By: jdfrankl on March 27, 2009
at 1:28 pm
Make that “The Federalist Papers”. Error due to comment written in haste while angry.
By: jdfrankl on March 27, 2009
at 1:29 pm
Thanks Shannon – you are one of the best – I must say I spend an inordinate amount of time reading the internet – my favorite of all is Mudflats – Sorry 🙂 as for my least favorite politician – she just got bumped by Mr. Doogan
By: Dan on March 27, 2009
at 1:38 pm
Dear jdfrankel, I am just willing to bet that Doogan doesn’t read much more than GINO, other than “what is put in front of him”. Maybe he’ll look it up? You think?
By: SoCalWolfGal on March 27, 2009
at 1:42 pm
There is a place for anonymity. Doogan is wrong. People do need to protect themselves from excessive retribution from power abusing bullies. The only reason bullies want to know who you are is so they can hurt you, use you as an example, and scare others.
I’d like to hear Doogan rationalize why anonymity should never be allowed. There are definitely circumstances in a democracy that absolutely require anonymity– for the sake of free speech, urestricted information, and democracy.
By: Jim on March 27, 2009
at 1:56 pm
Here’s the back and forth between Doogan and myself so far, not sure if he will email again since I decided to give a serious reply to his last email. And I took out my email not because I one of those evil people who wants to remain anonymous, but becuase I don’t want spam at my currently spam free email address
From: David Turnbull [mailto:xxxxxxx@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:19 PM
To: Rep. Mike Doogan
Subject: Mudflats
Rep. Doogan,
My name is David Turnbull, and I am a constituent of yours. I just got your latest email newsletter and have to question your choice of revealing the name of the Mudflats blogger. What was the motivation behind it? Was it the stories she did on your emails a few months ago? Was it some sense of duty? I just don’t get it.
And my future vote does depend on your answer.
Thanks,
David Turnbull
__
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Rep. Mike Doogan wrote:
My motivation is: I think the public should know who its is tearing strips off Sarah Palin every day. Not because I’m a big fan of Sarah Palin, but because I don’t believe in anonymity in the political area. It’s too much like people wearing sheets and hoods for my taste.
__
From: David Turnbull [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:56 PM
To: Rep. Mike Doogan
Subject: Re: Mudflats
Really? That’s the best you can come up with? Did you never use an anonymous source at the ADN? Do you disagree with Woodward and Bernstein’s choice to not out Deepthroat, or should they have published Mr. Felt’s name because anonymity doesn’t belong in the political area?
And I think that Fox News, Sarah PAC, Bill McAllister, and Meg Stapleton can handle protecting Sarah. I don’t need think she needs my state rep joining the team. Unless maybe you are looking for a speechwriting job in 2012?
And the people wearing sheets were there to try and scare and intimidate people, which seems to be what you were doing by outing Mudflats. Seems pretty petty, pretty vindictive, and pretty cowardly, wait now I understand why you like Sarah so much.
Dave
__
On Mar 27, 2009, at 1:57 PM, “Rep. Mike Doogan” wrote:
So wearing sheets and hoods is okay with you as long as they are blue sheets and hoods? Cool.
__
From: Dave [mailto:xxxxx@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Rep. Mike Doogan
Subject: Re: Mudflats
I didn’t say that. I just think that your analogy more aptly applies to your actions today than to an anonymous blogger.
___
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Rep. Mike Doogan wrote:
No kidding. Me, using my real name, revealing the real name of blogger who has been not been using her real name while attacking real people by name is more like the way the KKK operates? We must have read different history books.
____
From: David Turnbull
Date: Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Mudflats
To: “Rep. Mike Doogan”
I think that what you did feels to me and many others like you were using your position to intimidate a blogger in hopes of shutting her up. That may have been your intent, and you definitely aren’t ever going to admit it if it was, but the scare tactics seem more reminisent of the Klan than a concerned citizen writing a blog. She mostly attacked “real people by name” but chose to remain anonymous and probably had a reason for doing so.
This is a small state, political retribution is very real and so are the threats recieved by people who have publicly criticized Palin. I don’t know this particular bloggers reasons for remaining anonymous and I would guess that you don’t either. You were more concerned with your personal vendetta than anything else. It’s disappointing, I’ve voted for you in the past (hell I’ve even bought your books and took a class you taught at UAA), but am seriously questioning whether or not I can fill in that circle for you again.
Put the petty personal crap aside, I think it’s safe to say any repurcussions you were worried about from your emails being posted on her blog are going to be nothing compared to the fallout from this choice.
___
And that is it so far. I wanted to put in the last email that the only history book I have ever read was Dave Barry Slept Here: A Sort of History of the United States and that maybe if he read it too he could have learned something and wouldn’t have had to resort to taking a government job. But figured I would go the civil route in the end.
By: Dave on March 27, 2009
at 2:05 pm
I sent him an email, too. It wasn’t so nice. Not mean, just calling him out on why, as an elected, public official, he thinks it is important to throw the privacy of public citizens away. I might have mentioned something about serving his contituents rather than outing them, too. This was his response:
“Why? Are you somebody famous?”
Ha! What an asshole!
By: Derek on March 27, 2009
at 2:08 pm
Seriously, I wonder if AKM (and her family) will now need the benefits of a “Witness Protection” program, for having witnessed, observed and blown the whistle on the political shenanigans in Alaska?
Thanks for your bloody shameful gesture, Mr. Doogan.
By: CA Anon on March 27, 2009
at 2:09 pm
It’s not just protection from power abusing bullies, it’s protection from vigilantes and fanatics. AKA Muckraker has a family to consider and she doesn’t get secret service agents.
Doogan is a human dildo. And I don’t mind saying, come after me, little man. I’m Gail Zawacki in Oldwick NJ and I look forward to the opportunity to b*tch slap you when you come around. Please! Do you feel lucky???
By: Gail Zawacki on March 27, 2009
at 2:11 pm
@SoCalWolfGal I doubt if he’ll bother. I’m sure he’s busy chasing down the identities of all of Alaska’s anonymous bloggers. And then the anonymous commenters on the anonymous blogs. And then maybe he can do his job representing his district in the legislature. But hopefully he won’t be holding that job after the next election.
By: jdfrankl on March 27, 2009
at 2:13 pm
*clap clap clap * @ Dave.
Hammer? Meet Nail.
By: Ripley in Ct on March 27, 2009
at 2:16 pm
Well…I say it’s time for a little ambush interview a la Fox Noise style… what a prick.
By: AZ Mom on March 27, 2009
at 2:18 pm
Here is the point–the man was acting on behalf of the state. He made a determination that someone should exercise her constitutional rights only in the manner he deemed appropriate, not in the manner in which she had the First Amendment right to comment. He also made someone who had taken pains to keep her identity private a public figure.
This is a violation of federal law and of the state common law right to privacy. The fact that he did it on state time and in his capacity is what is called “state action” for a section 1983 civil rights claim. The Mudflats blogger, who was absolutely entitled to comment on matters of public interest and equally entitled to do so anonymously, has a significant lawsuit against this clown. Were I admitted to the Alaska bar, I’d love to handle it. Since I am not, I very much hope that she finds a lawyer with experience in civil rights claims. In addition to awarding damages, they also award attorneys’ fees. That is the only way to stop this sort of abuse of public position.
By: Donna on March 27, 2009
at 2:27 pm
Great Job Dave but I must admit reading several of the responses from Douchegan leads me to believe this guy could very well be a psychotic. He has tons of pathology and he’s stupid as well.
Add to that the fact that he appears to be using State owned computers and insulting people on State paid time, it seems as though Alaska has some fixin’ up to do with their local politics.
On a serious note – all of you have our total and complete support. We’re all contacting Huffpo, KeithO, RachelM…and all the other blogs. Not respecting people’s privacy is a really nasty trait.
DooDoo had better be prepared for a lot of blowback hopefully.
I truly wish I WAS in this jerk’s district –
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 2:32 pm
one more back and forth to add to my post above-
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Rep. Mike Doogan wrote:
David:
As always, you should re-evaluate your vote every time you cast it. Still, you just can’t have both sides of the argument. Either you think that attacking people anonymously, whether on a blog or in real life, is okay or you don’t. Which is it?
Mike
___
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 3:30 PM, David Turnbull wrote:
I don’t think that I am trying to have both sides. I think that there are perfectly valid reasons that a person would choose to remain anonymous, especially in Alaska where everyone seems to know everyone. I also think that there are alot of people out there who choose not to voice their opinion out of fear of retribution. Like I said before, I don’t know Mudflats reasons for remaining anonymous and you don’t either. There are people close to me who cannot speak out because of a fear of what might happen to them at their workplace, and it is very hard for them.
I admire a person who takes the time to put their voice out for the world to see, anonymous or not, as long as they are honest and not hiding behind a screen name to slander and destroy people. I haven’t read everything Mudflats has written, but what I have read has been backed up by facts and/or is clearly stated as the opinion of the author.
Unfortuantely the question you ask, like most question is not black and white no matter how bad you want it to be. If it was than you would be against using anonymous sources in any news story, and I know that can’t be.
By: Dave on March 27, 2009
at 2:32 pm
Good again Dave.
The issue of anonymity is a good one. As I see it, if Mudflats was LYING, then questioning lying smear attacks is legit.
Mudflats always sources material. I don’t believe I’ve ever read a word that was written that was not true. Therefore, her “attacks” on haraSnilaP are not attacks, simply repeating an already existing truth.
His arguments are moot.
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 2:35 pm
Shannyn,
As someone you have labeled schmarmy, I am feeling like I am in good company with Mr. Doogan. I respect you deeply for signing your name to your postings, whether I agree with you or not. I have little to no respect to the anonymous attack dogs whether they be liberal or conservative, progressive or otherwise.
By: Chris In Ak on March 27, 2009
at 2:38 pm
What is STUNNING to me is that Doogan thinks it is HIS JOB to remove anonymity from anyone. Who appointed him to be God?
If someone chooses to remain anonymous, that’s their choice. If that cuts into their credibility, so be it — there are trade-offs that come with the choice, and the person making that choice must accept those trade-offs for themselves and in the eyes of the reader/viewer/listener.
If Douchegan thinks it’s “bad” for someone to write things anonymously, then he’s entitled to that opinion. Further, he’s entitled to PUBLISH that opinion as a counterpoint to the anonymous writers out there.
But he’s stepped WAY over the line here, making himself out to be some kind of reverse Robin Hood, stealing anonymity from the powerless so as to protect the powerful.
By: @jmproffitt on March 27, 2009
at 2:40 pm
There was a comment over at Mudflats to the effect of a gathering at the Spenard Rec Center (I think!) this Saturday from 1-3p. doogan, French & someone else to be in attendance.
Rally on folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let’s sport some spectacular 1st Amendment signs, no name-calling, just some persuasive stuff!
By: SMR on March 27, 2009
at 2:43 pm
@Donna, possibly more disturbing: what about our constitutionally-protected right to privacy? Or is Mikey a one-man constitutional convention?
By: Cindy on March 27, 2009
at 2:45 pm
Good on you, Dave! Keep the dialogue with him going.
Shannyn – be your brilliant self on KO! All us mudpups will be cheering you on!
By: Suchanut_AK on March 27, 2009
at 2:47 pm
For a public official to invade the privacy of a private citizen was wrong when it was done to Joe the Plumber, and it’s wrong now.
I hope you guys were as outraged about Helen Jones-Kelly and Joe Wurzelbacher as you are about Mike Doogan and AKM.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 2:50 pm
With all due respect, some of the comments miss the point. In matters concerning public interest and/or public figures, there is a first amendment privilege to comment, criticize, satirize, you name it. Further, even if what is printed is false, it is constitutionally protected unless published with actual malice and disregard of falsity. Simply put, the First Amendment protects the right to speak and strictly limits anything that inhibits that right. That’s because someone in Doogan’s position can’t decide what is “true” and what is “false.”
So even if Mudflats were not entirely accurate (and I have never seen anything which was not substantiated), she had the right to speak and to do so anonymously. The fact that Doogan disagrees that she should be able to do so without identifying herself shows only one thing: he is utterly ignorant about the constitution. His opinion that people should identify themselves is meaningless–he can think whatever the heck he wants but the Constitution trumps his personal opinion.
Were he just a private citizen, Mudflats would still have a claim for invasion of privacy. However, he is a state employee and used state time and, in his official state capacity, disclosed her identity. He may also have used state resources to track her down, although that isn’t necessary.
The point is that, acting in his capacity as an employee for the state of Alaska, he violated someone’s constitutional right to speak and to do anonymously. This is a big lawsuit and filing it will do a whole lot more than anything else to stop it ever happening again–and will get Mudflats the compensation she deserves.
By: Donna on March 27, 2009
at 2:51 pm
Just wrote about this as well on ThinkAlaska.com.
By: Erick Cordero Giorgana on March 27, 2009
at 2:51 pm
Mike will be hurt more than helped by this idiocy. I’m still kind of in shock that he did it, given the rabid nature of the Sarah Palin fans.
Linda Scates, a/k/a Blue _in_AK
By: Blue_in_AK on March 27, 2009
at 2:52 pm
I don’t live in Alaska, so I can’t help get this piece of you know what out of office with a vote. But, I sure could help a little with some money. So, if you can find someone to run against him, please post on all the blogs where we can send money for that person’s campaign.
So far I haven’t seen him find fault with the content of any of AKM’s stories — only that she wrote them anonymously. My answer to him and everyone else is this: if Sarah and the rest of the lousy politicians in Alaska or anywhere else want the negative blogs, letters, speechs to stop it is in their hands. All they have to do is start to behave with honesty, ethics, transparency. That should not be too hard, but with the people we now have in office, I fear it is impossible.
By: HudsonElizabeth on March 27, 2009
at 2:52 pm
Mike’s actions were despicable. Why isn’t he releasing the name of his anonymous source? What excuse can he have for anonymity now? He claims there is no reason for a reasonable person to use anonymity. Is the person who puked to Mike akin to the KKK?
Is Mike Alaska’s Hypocrite of the Year?
A side note….. It seems Mr Doogan is smitten with Sarah, a common affliction. She must have some powerful pheromones.
By: Rick on March 27, 2009
at 2:54 pm
Has Mr Doogan revealed who gave him this information?
By: EyeOnYou on March 27, 2009
at 2:54 pm
Cindy–I was speaking of both the right to privacy and the right to speak. In this case, the right to speak includes the right to do so anonymously.
As for the person who would equate this to Joe the Plumber, he chose to place himself in the public arena. He didn’t need to ask questions in front of cameras but did so. At that point, anyone who knew the man and watched the footage could recognize him. That’s not someone trying to remain anonymous.
Having said that, if anyone had accessed his private records and done so under color of law, he would have a potential claim.
By: Donna on March 27, 2009
at 2:55 pm
GINO almost starts hate riots at the McCain/Palin rallies now look whats happening to Alaska. Doogan Bone & douche bag. What a pair.Pathetic
By: Connie WhiteheadAKM on March 27, 2009
at 2:55 pm
Hmm, I’ve been searching and searching for any sign of outrage from Shannyn when Governor Palin’s e-mail was hacked and family photos and messages released.
I guess the anger over privacy violation all depends on who the target is.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 2:56 pm
Great effort, Dave. You were trying so valiantly to communicate with an incredibly arrogant ass. It must have felt really odd to attempt to respond to such small-minded, unprofessional little “zingers” from a duly elected representative for the great state of Alaska.
Karma’s a bitch. It will be interesting to watch the little girly man unravel when his special form of stupidity catches up with him.
By: elsie09 on March 27, 2009
at 2:58 pm
@Donna thanks for the clarification – you’ve obviously studied this issue in some depth.
@VidOmnia I think that there was the big story re: Jones-Kelly & Wurzelbacher speaks to general public outrage over abuse of the public trust & power.
By: Cindy on March 27, 2009
at 2:59 pm
actually, the beauty of the constitution is that it protects someone as odious as Sarah Palin. While I could not have less regard for her, she had a right to have her private email kept private. From what I have read of Shannyn’s, I believe she would not regard the constitution as providing more protection to some targets than others and your post is juvenile, preening, and somewhat stupid.
By: Donna on March 27, 2009
at 2:59 pm
I should say “some” of the Sarah Palin fans.
By: Blue_in_AK on March 27, 2009
at 3:01 pm
and, having said that, you do have the constitutional right to be juvenile, preening, and somewhat stupid. The fact that I have the opinion from your posts that you are a dolt doesn’t mean you don’t have an absolute right to be one.
By: Donna on March 27, 2009
at 3:02 pm
VidOmnia:
Just a comment and not trying to be snarky. Palin deliberately sticks her family as photo-op in everything she does. She deliberately exposes her entire family including her special needs child to public scrutiny every time she goes out in public. and no It was not right her email was hacked – it isn’t right when any email is hacked.
That isn’t what this is about – it is about DooDoo being a jerk on state paid company time.
This is a completely different and unrelated issue.
The hacker should get jail time ok? Now are you happy?
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 3:04 pm
What Doogan did was unconscionable, churlish, and vindictive.
Doogan is in the “political arena;” MUDFLATS IS NOT.
Mudflats may comment on politics, and chose to do it in a time-honored American manner: anonymously.
Doogan is in a position of great power; MUDFLATS IS NOT.
Being a “writer,” I wonder if Mike would have similarly outed writers in the 1950’s who had to use pseudonyms because of blacklisting and persecution by Joe McCarthy and his horde.
Well, Doogan, Palin is the McCarthy of 2009. Thanks for acting as her sword. Good work, Mike.
By: ratfishtim on March 27, 2009
at 3:04 pm
@Donna – I’m sorry if you think my point is stupid. I’ve conversed with AKM in the past, and our posts were civil and respectful, and I deplore what has happened here.
But my point remains – I can look in the posts above at AKM’s site, and see people blaming Governor Palin for the actions of a Democratic state rep who is actually an outspoken opponent of Palin – look at his recent comments regarding her stimulus position!
And your point is that, because Barack Obama walked into Joe the Plumber’s neighborhood and Joe asked him a question, that made him a public figure ripe for “vetting” and having his records leaked to the media? Wow. Did AKM ask questions of Governor Palin in her blog?
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 3:09 pm
I’ve very politely phoned Doogan’s office, where a nice office staffer agreed to pass on the message that as a direct result of his actions against one of his constituent bloggers, this NJ resident will be contributing to anyone who runs against him for the remainder of his political career.
Mudflats was one of my first stops throughout the election, and it’s been a marvellous look into how Alaska works. I’m just sad to see that Mudflats is having to teach this particular Alaskan lesson in such a personal way.
By: Grace on March 27, 2009
at 3:13 pm
It wasn’t Joe the So-called Plumber asking questions, it was John the McCain making a celebrity of him that resulted in his background being checked. Not valid.
By: Aussie Blue Sky on March 27, 2009
at 3:16 pm
Joe the Plumber was outed by neighbors & family members. Not Obama. Not a blogger. Blame MSM, the neighbors, the ex-wife, the family members, whoever, but what has that to do with AKM, Shannyn or doogan?
Why shouldn’t AKM & Shannyn cherry-pick what they choose to blog about? There are about a zillion issues that can be blogged about on any given day. Joe is not Alaska-specific. AKM & Shannyn are pretty exclusively Alaska-specific blogs. Sometimes, as in the case of the Palin pick by McCain, that line blurs or bleeds, but it is still relevant to Alaska, and as written by AKM &/or Shannyn, comes from the perspective of an Alaskan/Alaskan spectator.
Apples & oranges.
By: SMR on March 27, 2009
at 3:16 pm
and I’m sorry that I hit out–that was uncalled for.
No, you misunderstood me. There was a great deal of feigned outrage over the “attacks” on Joe the Plumber (whose name was not Joe and who was not a plumber) by the Republicans. My response to that is that the man didn’t need to put himself in a position where his question would be publicized. That he was criticized was an understandable consequence of his choice there.
That is an entirely different matter from having private records accessed. Even though Joe Who Was Neither Joe Nor a Plumber is a singularly icky character, he’s entitled to have private records kept private. If they are public records, there’s no such interest.
This is no different from Sarah Palin. I happen to think she’s one of the most dangerous politicians I’ve seen in a long time, as well as incompetent. However, I am aghast when people suggest stealing her health care records or when someone hacks her email. Again, if you value the constitution, you value it for everyone.
I don’t particularly care if Doogan disagrees with Sarah Palin or not. What I care about is that he misused his position, violated someone’s constitutional rights, and would like to see a large lawsuit against him and his state be the consequence.
By: Donna on March 27, 2009
at 3:17 pm
I like logic, and I like facts so I can apply the logic myself. Thanks, Donna, for saying what I would have… Sarah Palin chose to run for governor and for vice-president. She is in a position of holding and guarding the public trust. Every American has the right–and maybe even the obligation–to express his or her concerns about this individual. As far as I know, Mudflats was not written by someone seeking public office, and therefore I feel no need to know this person’s identity. “Mudflats” represents only a voice, not the ability to determine whether stimulus money will come into Alaska. That voice has never been forced upon me, and I can judge by the writing itself whether it is worth listening. Mudflats doesn’t have any direct control over my life and my state. Sarah Palin does. I need to know her identity. I don’t need to know the identity of Mudflats.
Mike Doogan also placed himself in the position of having some measure of control over my life and my state.
The identity of our public officials is important, and it is good to know all about them.
The excerpts of letters written by Mike Doogan, as reported here and elsewhere, concern me. His action in “outing” the author of Mudflats does seem petty, vindictive and arrogant. His attempts to justify it are not–to my mind–logical. I would not vote for him.
I used to sign my own name to blog postings, but soon became cautious because of the unbalanced individuals out there. I don’t like not using my own name, so it is readily available, but I don’t believe it is necessary to intelligent discourse.
It is the right…and I might even say the obligation…of all Americans to express their thoughts
By: 1Alaskan on March 27, 2009
at 3:21 pm
Ok, who’s going to file an ethics complaint against Doogan?
By: BettyJoBialowski on March 27, 2009
at 3:22 pm
VidOmnia-
This isn’t even comparable to what happened with Palin’s email. That was a college kid who hacked it for fun, and barely released anything.
And Joe the Plumber sued the people who released the info on him, after they left their jobs as a result of the leaks. So if you think Doogan should lose his job and there should be a lawsuit maybe you are on to something.
By: Dave on March 27, 2009
at 3:23 pm
If there is a God
this sleazy loser will lose a big lawsuit.
By: BigPete on March 27, 2009
at 3:25 pm
Damn, I wish I was a member of the AK bar.
By: the problem child (an aunt, also) on March 27, 2009
at 3:27 pm
@Donna – Joe the Plumber’s private records were accessed and leaked, by Ohio state employee and Obama supporter Helen Jones-Kelley. She’s being sued.
And Shannyn appeared on an episode of Olbermann where he was chortling about Palin’s e-mail being hacked, with nary a word from her.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26841793/
Look, I don’t mean to troll here. I am on AKM’s side in this case, and I realize that you probably won’t blog on stories favorable to the Governor, just like I don’t blog negatively about her. That’s politics.
But I hope you examine your principles and stand up for people for Republicans that have their rights violated, just as you do for Democrats. We’re all Americans.
Enough said, I guess.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 3:28 pm
I just spoke to someone in Doogan’s office who claims that he NEVER used an anonymous source in all his time as a journalist. Anyone with access to his paper’s archives care to reaserch this?
I also asked her if Doogan would be releasing the name of his source on AKM’s identity since he is so opposed to anonymity.
By: Bea on March 27, 2009
at 3:36 pm
VidOmnia,
“Joe-the-Plumber” LIED about everything in his questions to Obama INCLUDING his name. THAT is why he was subjected to so much scrutiny. If you place yourself in front of national TV cameras and LIE, you can probably expect to be EXPOSED AS A LIAR.
By: Bea on March 27, 2009
at 3:39 pm
VidOmnia:
Just a question, do you just everyone who does something wrong/illegal by their political position? Obama won the election by over 10 points which represents .. oh a few MILLION supporters. Being an Obama supporter does not mean that you agree with or approve of another supporter who commits a criminal act. Are you implying that Mr. Obama has personal knowledge of Helen Jones-Kelley since she is a supporter and approved of her actions (again since she is a supporter)?
Now, I happen to be an Obama supporter. Therefore if I commit a crime, following your logic, Obama would approve of me doing it because I am a supporter? And I would be identified first as an Obama supporter and 2nd as a criminal?
Logic?
Since you brought it up, do you have any stories that are favorable to Governor nilaP? I frankly find her scary and a threat to pretty much all human life.
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 3:43 pm
Let’s hope so. re: Nuff said.
By: Ripley in Ct on March 27, 2009
at 3:49 pm
VidOmnia: “And Shannyn appeared on an episode of Olbermann where he was chortling about Palin’s e-mail being hacked, with nary a word from her.”
Not a good example for a Palin supporter to use: remember Sarah discussing Lyda Green? Lack of response is a dangerous test to apply against anyone.
Let’s just agree that there are people in both parties who are less than we would wish them to be.
By: Jaime In Texas on March 27, 2009
at 3:49 pm
VidOmnia, I think it’s worthy of acknowledging your distain for Doogan’s actions. I think we all can agree to that. However, I think “Joe the Plumber” got a big trumped up invasion because the McCain campaign sought him out. After all, in the Q&A with then candidate Obama, Joe asked a question re: his policies that identified Joe as being in line with McCain/Palin. AND, if you will remember, Sen. McCain brought him up in the second presidential debate. After that, yes, the media dug through the guy’s life. Was it called for? No. But how am I to feel sorry for the guy when he agreed and even appeared at a few McCain/Palin rallies AFTER the media feeding frenzy?
AKM never reported anything other than the truth. If she had lied, if she had said “Palin is a poopyhead and picks her nose freely, while burning the state flag” with little to no credible proof, then I’d say AKM was taking advantage of the anonyminity of blogging.
But AKM never lied. AKM gave what to the readers what they wanted – an Alaskan point of view/voice to issues in AK. An editorial perspective, if you will.
I sought her out, as I did Shannyn and Gryphen, and Diva, and several others because I wanted the unfiltered truth on the person who could have been a heartbeat away from the presidency. I seek them out today, because I believe they exercise their Constitutional rights better than any group of citizens I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing. I admire their intestinal fortitude. I admire their tenacity. I admire their passion, their wit, their wicked smarts.
And regardless of how out there they want to be with who they are, where they are, and by what handle they go by, they are citizens who should have every right and priviledge to privacy afforded them, regardless of whether or not what they have to say makes Doogan, Palin or anyone else unhappy.
Hey, Shannyn. Give AKM and Diva a big hug from your fans here in the lower 48. We got your backs, sistas!
Rock on, you beautiful smarty pants. Rock. ON!
By: AZ Mom on March 27, 2009
at 4:02 pm
@basheert
No, I don’t judge politicians by the actions of a few of their supporters. Not even Barack Obama, though there was indeed a lot of hateful stuff. I seem to remember people with T-shirts calling the Governor a four-letter sexist slur that begins with C and ends with T, that the Governor’s children were exposed to. But that wasn’t Obama’s doing. Just as it wasn’t Obama’s fault that some nutcases think Trig isn’t the Governor’s child. There are lots of deranged people.
Sure, we have plenty of stories favorable to the good Governor. Just click on my name and read away. I don’t expect you to agree, but I read the stories here without having a hissy fit, because I like to take in all points of view.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 4:07 pm
in re to Joe the Plumber – seems to me HE put himself out there and then the McCain/Palin folks held him up as their number one symbol of working-class America. I don’t recall any incident in which JTP declined to speak to the press, requested to be left alone, or chose to fade back into his everyday unlicensed plumbing life. In fact, I recall that JTP actively sought the public spotlight and proclaimed himself “horny” from all the GOP adulation he received. AKM, on the other hand, chose to remain anonymous – but that in no way means that her opinions and postings are invalid or unprotected by the Constitution. More to the point, in my way of thinking, is how many more private citizens must submit to government officials who choose to terrorize them? Is this really the path down which this country has been herded?
By: Greytdog Δ on March 27, 2009
at 4:14 pm
Let me walk back what I said already. The only point I wanted to made her was that AKM deserved her privacy. I deserve mine. Joe the Plumber deserved his, and so did Governor Palin.
Malia and Sasha Obama deserve their privacy. So do Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston, and all the rest of the Palin family. So does Anne Kilkenny.
And the same goes for anyone who wants to speak anonymously for PETA, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers, the American Communist Party, the National Rifle Association, or whatever.
As Americans we should be standing up for everyone’s Constitutional rights, not celebrating when our enemies get shafted and getting outraged when our friends get the same treatment.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 4:19 pm
Thanks for keeping the discourse rational & reasonable in tone.
I like that we can have a conservative around (and since my husband & I are long-time Repubs I guess one could say that we are conservatives, at least about some things, though not Palin supporters) with a different perspective and have a reasonable discussion, though differing on some points.
By: SMR on March 27, 2009
at 4:47 pm
Shannyn- thank you .
Donna- thank you.
Dave- thank you.
I have a close family member who wrote a very public letter- one letter- denouncing a decision by Governor Palin.
The folks who disagreed via newspaper were not polite but within bounds of civil behavior.
The many,many phone calls from weirdos who tracked down address and home phone were way over the line.
Whatever is right with our huge state and small population, there is a nasty, dark side too.
Mr doogan has behaved like a fool. Outing AKM was a personal choice of his, distributed publically via his WORK station.
Were he in the private sector, as I am, his boss would have grounds to fire him immediately for personal use of company time and equipment.
As Mr doogan is in the public sector, he is not in immediate danger of being fired but were he my Rep I’d have real questions about his priorities for my district. I would wonder how his personal theories got elevated to being worthy of publishing to all his constituents, especially in light of all the work of this short session and a scary budget forecast.
Donna’s interp of the protection of privacy and free speech in the Constitution are proper and well said.
SMR- the civility inherent in capitalizing proper names is normally something I always observe but you are right… Mr doogan just lost that piece of civility… from me too.
By: alaskapi on March 27, 2009
at 4:47 pm
Hi, Shannyn! You were awesome on KO tonight! I especially liked your comment about school dropouts. : ) That will most likely upset SP, but it is the truth. Her (and others’) attacks on bloggers amaze me; the bloggers have only told the truth. It’s not as if they are making stuff up. How can stating the truth be conceived at “an attack”? It can’t–not by responsible people, at least. But Palin and her supporters are not reasonable people. I pray that Alaska can rid itself of her and her ilk. God bless you!
By: Sue on March 27, 2009
at 4:58 pm
I guess I really have to ask Shannyn if she has received threats because of her posts here regarding Sarah Palin. Have you Shannyn? Phillip Munger isn’t afraid to use his name in his Progressive Alaska blog and he doesn’t speak of threats from the Palin clan because he speaks his mind. Hell, what is life like for Olbermann and Maddow? They’re in the BIG LEAGUES bashing Palin and others of her ilk. Can one even imagine the ill will that must come towards Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert?
Let’s stop being afraid to put our names to our written words. If the Palinistas come down on us then if we all stand up and own up to what we write then they can’t take us all out.
By: Alicia Greene on March 27, 2009
at 4:59 pm
VidOmnia:
If Bristol Palin doesn’t want publicity about her “relationship” with Levi, why is she giving interviews?
Same with Joe (not his name) the Plumber (not his occupation)? If his privacy was violated, why is he out there and not complaining?
Sarah Palin stuffed her kids in everyone’s face and made the citizens pay for her to take them to official events when uninvited. That makes them fair game. Her daughter Piper was photographed with a $300 designer bag paid for by the RNC.
Palin wants publicity – she just might not understand that when you seek out publicity, you cannot control whether it is good or bad. She simply cannot have it both ways and control what people write, it doesn’t work that way.
My personal opinion is that she is probably one of the most dangerous people I’ve ever read about. Again, that is my personal opinion based upon her threats to wildlife and humans alike.
Being a public figure exposes you to both adulation and vile hatred Again my personal opinion but Palin certainly goes against the grain of many thinking rational adults with her rather skewed views.
I don’t recall people on Alaska blogs threatening Ms Palin – they may not like her, her politics or her pimping for Arctic Cat and using her kids in that as well……but threats? The threats obviously come from her administration and are directed at people who do not agree with her or her political decisions or her questionable misuse of public funds (ie. her per diem abuse).
Differences can be fun – or they can be threatening. Obviously to the sarahphiles, any dislike of their chosen priestess is horrific and anyone expressing distaste must be silenced. On the other hand, you are not being outed or banned on this blog. You are free to speak your mind. As it should be.
Those of us who disagree with sarah worship find it strange – almost cultish. And although you are within your right, it is difficult to understand the attraction.
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 5:16 pm
@Sue – I’m a pretty hardcore Palin supporter, and I think I’m a reasonable person. The people that I met at Palin rallies, and the Palin supporter that comment at my blog, seem pretty reasonable, too.
Why do you think we’re not reasonable?
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 5:19 pm
Shannyn, thank you so much for this article. I, too, love Mudflats, and found Doogan’s actions appalling.
Since Palin came upon the national scene, I heard she always wants to know—who said that. Even in an interview I heard her asking—who said that. Knowing that, I believe Doogan sabotaged AKMuckraker for Palin, plain and simple. He even admitted it was about Palin in the email. Methinks that (D) should be changed to an (R). Or better yet, an ethics complaint filed for using taxpayers’ monies for personal or political gains since it couldn’t possibly be State’s business.
Thank you, Shannyn, for allowing me to express my opinions. And please give AKMuckraker a big hug! I appreciate you both!!
By: mdlw56 on March 27, 2009
at 5:22 pm
Vid_Omnia,
The first time I saw your name was in the Mudflats comments, speaking about the request to ADN about links to different bloggers. I appreciated it then, and I appreciate it now. Unfortunately, I’d seen your comment a day or so after it was posted; a little late to add to it.
About the email hacking. Wrong! Putting Gov Palin’s private emails out in public: wrong. Esp if they included pictures or info re the family (although Gov Palin herself has already had the family “out there”). I think the hacker is going to be doing time, but don’t have verification handy.
Joe the Plumber: Helen what’s her name was Wrong! She had no business using her position in that way. Period. As it turns out, Joe had uh – “misrepresented” himself. That’s a little embarrassing, but still. It was wrong for anyone to root through private info, especially someone in a position of responsibility.
And, besides all the info available publicly, any reporter worth his/her salt could have interviewed Joe or his neighbors or employer (?) and learned much of the same information. Helen Jones-Kelley didn’t need to abuse her authority, and did anyway. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
So yes, there are Mudflats readers that feel the same way. We don’t all get heard, and sometimes the subject moves along so fast there’s no time to comment before the next two topics are on the table.
thanks,
Nan
By: shrinkinggranny on March 27, 2009
at 5:28 pm
Basheert, Bristol Palin was the target of vitriol months before she gave an interview. I think the interview was a mistake, personally – but I guess I can forgive her for wanting to get her point of view out there, even though I don’t think it was very effective.
In regards to Palin “putting her children out there” – are you serious? I remember seeing Malia and Sasha Obama during the Convention coverage and thinking they were darling, and I’ve also seen them in numerous media profiles of the Obama family. I remember seeing Chelsea Clinton everywhere during her parents’ campaigns.
But it would never even occur to me to think that this made them legitimate targets for attacks. Every politician has always highlighted their family. Why get so worked up about it?
And why the fixation on Joe Wurzelbacher’s nickname? Do you get mad that Anthony Knowles goes by ‘Tony’ or Willard Romney goes by ‘Mitt’? The same for his plumbing license. This makes him fair game for any kind of attack?
I’m just asking for a basic level of civility in discussion and for the same standard to apply on both sides of the aisle.
By: VidOmnia on March 27, 2009
at 5:30 pm
Doogan seems to be protecting his anonymous source. Will Doogan out him ?
He misses the point of the 1st amendment.
He also misses the subtle difference between sending information to people, and seeking it at a web site.
It don’t go to arion nation sites, because I choose not to go.
If Doogan doesn’t like reading “attacks” on Palin he doesn’t have to -go- to Mudflats.
On the other hand, who asked to get the information Doogan sent to members of his list?
THIS was an attak on AKMs privacy.
I would remind readers that Fax machines generally do not have spam filters … : )
907-465-4419 fx
By: DrChill on March 27, 2009
at 5:38 pm
We left Alaska in 1987 due to death threats against my husband for his environmental work. He was told that his plane would not be safe and yes, the engine failed midflight (he brought it down safely). That new part somehow wasn’t working after maintenance and “nothing could be proved.”
The freedom people felt then to be violent against those with whom they disagreed was chilling. I do hope that has changed, but threats need to be taken seriously. It is unconscionable for a public official to violate a private citizen’s chosen anonymity and for the sake of others, he needs to be held to account legally for such a violation.
Alaska is a beautiful state and there is much I miss about it, but we felt, for the safety of our children, that we needed to make a life elsewhere.
By: Nelle on March 27, 2009
at 5:39 pm
VidOmnia,
I think people agree with you that people illegally accessing “Joe the Plumber’s” records and hacking emails was wrong. Those happened last year. Lots of people spoke up then and said it was wrong.
This is happening right now, in Alaska, perpetrated by a public official. It is not okay and we are speaking up about it on Alaska Blogs. I appreciate your civility and comments, you’ve stated them clearly, we get it, many of us are among those who objected to the other cases LAST YEAR, and it’s time to move on to THIS incident, which is happening RIGHT NOW and is the subject of this blog entry. Just my civil two bits.
By: walkaboutstory on March 27, 2009
at 5:41 pm
I agree with the concept of a basic level of civility in discussion. Sarah Palin cannot have it both ways. She is either in the public eye (something she does with relish) or she hides (something she isn’t inclined to do obviously). She appears to be narcissistic by drawing attention to herself (positive or negative) for attention’s sake.
She is a walking pile of pathology – and she doesn’t get it that people think she’s nuts? She’s erratic, strange and a religious fanatic.
Those attributes don’t exactly endear her to even the mainstream tolerant media. Frankly most of us are breathing huge sighs of relief that she is your problem and not ours.
On the other hand, that has nothing to do with you. Disagreeing with her and believing she is an unqualified nutcase certainly isn’t an attack on you. She doesn’t do herself any favors – she certainly doesn’t have any redeeming qualities and infact I am totally grateful she was on the ticket with my own resident idiot McCain. She doomed them both…to my great relief.
So we both had a dog in the hunt. Fortunately either my dog killed yours or yours killed mine. Mine however isn’t terribly active or visible in AZ…yours however is everywhere.
You are most welcome to her. She certainly will be God’s gift to the Republican ticket in 2012….for all of us.
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 5:42 pm
Thank you Shannon – and I am so happy to see familiar names in your comments section since I couldn’t get into the forum at mudflats to rally with the mudpuppies.
Hello everybody – have faith.
From the (still) anonymous, WfAK
By: Writing from Alaska on March 27, 2009
at 6:03 pm
Sorry – Shannyn!!
By: Writing from Alaska on March 27, 2009
at 6:03 pm
And PS since we can’t get to mudflats – Please send love and prayers to our friend AKM on our behalf. Thanks –
By: Writing from Alaska on March 27, 2009
at 6:05 pm
Shannyn – you were fantastic on KO tonight! I certainly liked the zinger re: high school dropouts.
Please give Mudflats a hug from all of us. What Doogan did was deplorable.
By: SmallSteps on March 27, 2009
at 6:06 pm
Yes, jdfrankel, let’s hope he won’t be holding that job much longer. There is a lot of responses re our dear AKM. Let’s see what the morrow brings. I hope I am not naive, but I do believe that right is on our side. Good night Mudps everywhere. Let’s all rally tomorrow to see what we can do for AKM. I have to say, I’m having a hard time with all of this, as I know all of us are. But, there are strength in numbers, and we are united!
By: SoCalWolfGal on March 27, 2009
at 6:11 pm
Loved you on KO. I hope my red hummer driving neighbor stays away from my street.
By: jo in AK on March 27, 2009
at 6:20 pm
Shannyn: You were terrific on KO tonight. Keep up the good work.
I’ve been on Mudflats the past half hour or so … obviously traffic comes and goes. There is a new post up from Bob Poe. Interesting and equally interesting comments.
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 6:30 pm
VidOmnia,
I’m the one that used the phrase “out there” I did not mean it as an attack, I simply meant that I saw here kids more often [a lot more than I saw Obama’s kids – and I was watching for all the candidates as I really didn’t know who I was going to vote for at that point].
As for Joe’s actual name; I don’t think anyone can spell it! Truly! My 1st husband was a 2nd generation American with a germanic last name. It took 11 letters to spell it. No one could spell it *or* pronounce it. And it had just as many syllables as Joe’s name.
Nan
By: shrinkinggranny on March 27, 2009
at 6:31 pm
sorry, I missed a typo – 3rd line, “her” not “here”… sorry.
back to regularly scheduled topic…
By: shrinkinggranny on March 27, 2009
at 6:36 pm
Hey everyone – wonder if “this” had something to do with the attack on AKM?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-dunn/huffpo-exclusive-right-wi_b_180283.html
apologies if this was previously posted…check out the first paragraph….
By: basheert on March 27, 2009
at 6:38 pm
Representative Doogan,
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. How dare you single handedly decide with your egotistical bullshit “theory” to out someone who blogs who preferred her anonymity. That was her choice NOT YOURS.
As a public servant, you arrogantly violated the public trust. Not a big surprise coming from you. You are certainly the Joe Lieberman of the Alaska Democratic Party.
I will work hard on your next opponent’s behalf. Be it a Democratic or Republican challenger. As a progressive, I recognize others with progressive views. You have continually contradicted that ideal. I heard you while you were a guest on a local radio show mock the fact that Alaska has REAL issues with election integrity. I think your comment was something like you were glad Alaskans turned out in such high numbers. Yeah….isn’t that great. Precincts with 200+% turnout! Move along. Nothing to see. Proof enough that you have overstayed your welcome in Juneau.
Why don’t you resign and go to work for Governor Palin??? You would give old Billy McCallister a run for the money when it comes to Palin Reality Deficit Disorder.
Time for you to just GO. NOW!
Good Riddance.
Kelly
By: Kelly on March 27, 2009
at 7:05 pm
VidOmnia,
Two last comments on JTP and the Palin email hacking:
1) After LYING on national TV, JTP did everything he could to keep his name and face ON national TV. He made himself a public figure and, truth be told, made out like a BANDIT- debts paid by strangers, reporting gig, HDTV spokesmodel, etc. He is a LYING fame-whore and gets no sympathy from me.
2) The interest in Palin’s email account was likely because there is STRONG evidence that she was following in Bush-Rove’s ILLEGAL footsteps and using a private email account to conduct state business UNDER THE RADAR and to circumvent the LAWS about record-keeping. The college kid did a dumb thing, but Palin was breaking the LAW and has yet to be held accountable for that, or any of her other legal and ethical violations.
I get that you are a conservative, but find it hard to believe that you think the ethically-challenged, narcissistic and slightly unhinged Palin is the best standard-bearer for your cause.
By: Bea on March 27, 2009
at 7:18 pm
Amazing that a man who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Alaskan constitution would so easily set aside his oath of office by engaging in such juvenile and reprehensible behavior. Mikey is one dude who is in desperate need of a swift kick to the ass. Let’s hope the door does hit him squarely as he exits the ranks of the elected.
By: sauer kraut on March 27, 2009
at 8:12 pm
btw – VidOm: joe never sought privacy. joe wanted his name and face out there; he sought fame. and still pursues fame. he made a choice to be known in public; AKM never got to making that choice. doogan, an elected state rep, violated AKM’s free speech rights by outting her. There is no excuse for that type of behavior by an elected representative.
By: sauer kraut on March 27, 2009
at 8:20 pm
I am not from Alaska but have family that have lived their for over 35 years so I try to keep up. Usually when we get together we don’t talk politics we talk reunion and family.However I had to send an email to this man who outed the mudflats writer.At first I had though he was a democrat but as I read some of why he outer our writer I thought he was a republican,I than googled his name to find out which he was. So in the end I sent him 3 emails telling him how wrong I though he was in what he did even if I was not from Alaska I used the bloggs to get the real deal not the media spin on things and I signed my full name,Sure hope it doe not come back on me,I read in the ADN blog where someone was threatened that they would have to move out of the valley if they did not like SP That really set me on course and that was when she first came out.
By: jojobo1 on March 27, 2009
at 9:02 pm
Good luck, AKM. Doogan has totally misused his position as an elected official by doing this. I use to want to move to or at least visit AK, but not anymore.
By: pearl89 on March 27, 2009
at 9:06 pm
Bea, re: your comment on March 27, 2009
at 7:18 pm — I was going to say that very thing when the comments between VidOmnia and others were exchanged regarding SP’s private Yahoo! e-mail account.
Had she been using the approved, legal state e-mail system to communicate with her administrative and support staff, then I think she and her fans would be entitled to the kind of outrage we are all feeling at AKM being “outed” by name.
However, that private e-mail account was intended to hide something, thus was ripe for hacking. The kid certainly may face jail time, but if he must pay a price for what he did, then Sarah Palin should pay a price for her end run around the rules and regulations and laws governing public service.
Surely what she did amounts to ANOTHER ethics violation!
By: KarenJ on March 27, 2009
at 9:07 pm
Repeating what Donna said earlier because it’s good info:
Judging from e-mail exchanges that have been posted to this blog, Doogan’s mental stability – not to mention his temper – seems to be questionable at best. A civil rights prosecution, perhaps with court-ordered therapy or incarceration in a psychiatric hospital if so ruled, might be the best thing for him.
By: Phoenix Woman on March 27, 2009
at 9:15 pm
Shannyn
Thank-you again for all you do!!!
You were great on KO tonight !
Donna
Thanks for all the legal input; there are a few constitutional scholars who are also Bloggers who should be made aware of what has happened to AKM. The first who comes to mind is Jonathan Turley; there is also Patrick at Popehat; and Marc Randazza at the Legal Satyricon who is particularly interested in First Amendment cases (you all have probably heard of the Autoadmit case it would take to long to explain here, but it is easily sourced by google; let’s just say that doodoo has just let himself hit the fan!) This is a major violation of Mudflats’ civil rights.
Typical that doodoo should launch his bomb on a Friday; the beginning of the slow news cycle!
With State offices closed over the weekend he is hoping for less punch back. Prove him wrong and phone, fax and email everyone you know.
By: cej on March 27, 2009
at 9:16 pm
Bea,
Thanks for all your good work setting VidOmnia straight!
VidOmnia,
@5:30pm You said “The same for his plumbing license. This makes fair game for any kind of attack.”
I’m not sure what you mean by that. You do know that JTP did not have nor did he ever have a Plumber’s license. So he was lying; or you could call it misrepresentation of his skills so he could make more money; most States call it Fraud and it is a criminal act when you tell customers you are a plumber and you are not one.
The fact is even after he was exposed he was still referred to by McCain, Palin and their supporters as JTP; at best they may have called him “Joe the(horny fame whore) Handy-Man!” But then again they were using him weren’t they.
P.S. Tax liens are public records.
By: cej on March 27, 2009
at 9:37 pm
Shannyn–Saw you on KO tonight and you rocked! Loved the comment on drop-outs. Watch your back now, though. And we’ve got it too.
By: InJuneau on March 27, 2009
at 10:00 pm
Thank you, Mike!
By: Sarah Palin on March 27, 2009
at 10:03 pm
VidOmnia – Take it from a Christian conservative ( I don’t know if you’re a Christian or not) – Sarah Palin IS NOT WHO YOU THINK SHE IS. So, so many of us in Alaska have had a slow wake up the past two years since she’s been in office. The woman many of us helped elect has turned out to be unspeakably mean-spirited, an absolute socialist (that is why the Dems in AK liked her prior to her VP nomination), uninterested in public policy matters, incurious about almost anything other than the soap opera dramatics that dictate her and her family’s life.
I know Sarah. As a Christian – I am obliged to forgive her and to pray for her. But I sure as heck am also obliged to call a spade a spade. She has repeatedly lied -about large and small matters – just like yesterday re: the lies about not making the meeting with Senator Stevens. Perhaps to you lying at this level is small potatoes. But it is this sort of juvenile behavior constantly out of her.
NO OTHER GOVERNOR IN THE NATION BEHAVES LIKE THIS and gets away with it from their primary media sources. But in AK, our few editors and reporters stay silent in a bidding frenzy for Sarah to select them next to join her ever growing personal PR team that shamelessly does business on the State dime.
Let’s just suppose you are a believer. How does it square with you that Sarah has a hugely documented inability to tell the truth?
See, I had to hop off the bus months ago. The day I actually pulled the lever and took my leave was the day Sarah laughingly mocked our State’s Senate President, Lyda Green, on the air to two potty-mouthed DJs.
She is shameless, that one (hat tip to John McCain).
Assuming you are a believer, it’s okay for a “sister” in Christ to chortle and guffaw when another “sister in Christ” (Lyda is a faithful attender at Palmer Church of God) is called a bitch and a cancer on the airwaves?
That works for you?
It doesn’t work for me anymore.
Sarah is small minded, mean-spirited and willing to plop her five month pregnant daughter on a stage in Ohio with nothing but a limp baby blanket slung over her abdomen so that she, Sarah, could mount the stage and take the prize of VP nomination – a position for which she was woefully inadequate. Sorry Bristol, my only consolation is that there are lots of Alaskans under the bus who will treat you with some decency and dignity.
Jesus said to value and honor others more highly than yourself. That’s what Sarah did to Bristol on August 29, 2008?
Stop lying to yourself.
(And this doesn’t begin to cover the fact that Sarah is in NO WAY remotely a conservative).
My prayer for you is that the Kool Aid will start to taste bitter to you sooner rather than later.
By: think again on March 27, 2009
at 10:31 pm
Thank you, Shannyn, for all you do, for who you are, and for being a loyal friend. And thank you for slamming Mike Doogan. This whole affair has sickened me. Truly. This is a despicable act. As someone who has worked in journalism for 35 years, I have always recognized the role of anonymity in respect to both sources, and, occasionally bylines. One need only read the Federalist Papers to understand the significance—and sanctity—of anonymous bylines in American political history. And whether we like it or not—and there have been times when I have not liked it—anonymity is simply standard faire in the age of the internet, and we had all better get used to it. What Mike Doogan did was shameful. Truly. Disgusting. Gutless. Sick. But I do believe in karma, and his will certainly come. And Mudflats will morph into something else. But for an-all-too-brief moment, it provided a fresh and critical assessment of Alaska politics in general, and of a governor who would-be president in particular. And I am thankful for that. Mudflats made a difference. Mike Doogan never has and never will.
By: geoffrey on March 27, 2009
at 10:51 pm
A sad commentary on the state of things, much exacerbated by the Fear that has been exploited since 9/11.
We would all be more poorly informed were it not for independent bloogers – yes, some anonymous, some in pajamas.
By: Biglake on March 27, 2009
at 11:25 pm
…..and by some who join in the discussion with spell check turned off….
make that ‘Bloggers’
By: Biglake on March 27, 2009
at 11:27 pm
You did well on KO, I enjoyed it as usual.
As for Doogan (sp? who cares) I hope he gets nailed publicly, civilly, and criminally!
By: Bones on March 28, 2009
at 12:22 am
Shannyn, you were great on KO.
Doogan should have to spend the next year writing these two phrases on a blackboard:
“PUBLIC SERVANT”
“PRIVATE CITIZEN”
Heard you on KPFT a while back with the wonderful, one-named Scooter.
KPFT was shot up by some vicious yokel in a white sedan not long ago. Nobody was hurt, but it was close.
By: ulla the perky pink rose on March 28, 2009
at 1:17 am
Doogan’s misuse of his office has to be addressed.
And not having W.A.R. for AG has to be addressed. It can not be lost in the current frey of Doogan’s outing of Mudflats.
By: sissy on March 28, 2009
at 2:06 am
I’ve read all the comments, and agree with most, even the conservatives, for a change. So, just to add my two cents worth, what Doogan did was dispicable and a misuse of his office as an elected public official. That is the difference. He has chosen to lead a public life, but just because AKM and a lot of the rest of us have not made the same choice doesn’t lessen the value of our opinions We are all citizens and have the right to speak our minds.
What has changed is the way we share our views. The internet is a fantastic outlet but is still showing its growing pains. People who are private citizens, not public officials, have put their real identities out there have been stalked or threatened in the past, and those are the stories that scare the rest of us. As someone mentioned, either here or on The Mudflats, one of the first things people are told is to NOT use their real name or location on line.
If I write to my Senators or Representatives or President Obama, I will sign my name and give my home town, not just my state. That’s a different situation from blogging.
It’s not the identity of the person that matters on a blog or a forum, but what they have to say. Most people who frequent blogs/forums understand and respect that. We are sharing ideas and opinions, and personal information is something that is not pertinent.
It’s a fine point that Doogan obviously does not understand and doesn’t want to understand. So not only did he breach that blogging protacol, he did so in an unethical way by using his power as a political figure. Just how did he get that information about who AKM is anyway? Did he hack into her email, or have her followed, or . . .?
The possibilites of how he found out who AKM are even more disturbing than his creepy obsession with finding out what her real name is. It doesn’t matter. What mattered was that we, who have been following The Mudflat since last fall, liked finding a place that brought us all kinds of information about Alaska that the MSM was not bothering to print or report. And as it turns out, there have been a lot of things that all of us should know about, not just Alaskans.
We really do live globally now, and blogging is a great tool that allows us to get to know our neighbors, even if our neighbors live thousands of miles away, or in different countries. This sure beats the old way of having a pen pal from another country as a way to learn what life is like outside our own home town.
But one of the crucial things for everyone to remember is that we need to respect the wishes of others – if they want to remain anonymous, then we need to let them do it. Just because someone blogs anonymously doesn’t make their opinion any less valuable. In fact, I find that it is sometimes better – just reading what someone has to say without knowing a real name or who the person is allows all of us to focus on the issue rather than the personality.
Shannyn, thanks for speaking up for AKM.
By: Pat, Washingonton state on March 28, 2009
at 2:36 am
Hmmm, it appears that I can’t spell the name of my state. So I’ve corrected it, and now I wonder how long it’s been like that. Odd.
By: Pat, Washington state on March 28, 2009
at 2:38 am
LOVED you on KO last night! Especially your zinger regarding education..Go Girl!!
Wonder if he ever heard of deep throat?
there are many reasons why someone does not want their name to be used…and thankfully we live in a country where this is suppossed to be protected under our constitution…what is happening here?
Many hugs and much positive good energy to AK!…
By: Judi on March 28, 2009
at 3:20 am
I’m thousands of miles away from Alaska but I’ve loved reading so many bloggers I discovered during the campaign who open a window into life there with thoughtful commentary and speaking their truth. You, Mudflats, Celtic Diva are all on my regular reading list.
I was appalled to read about Doogan’s actions and hope Mudflats’ life and family won’t be adversely affected. I hope he pays dearly.
By: Anne on March 28, 2009
at 3:44 am
Thank you Shannyn! And thanks to Dave for sharing the email exchange! And Mr. Doogan??? As my daughter used to say “It would suck to be you right now.”
By: Nebraska Native on March 28, 2009
at 3:57 am
There must be three categories of Alaska politicians: churlish and manipulative, self-serving power hogs and public servants. No wonder the state can’t deal with its low high school graduation rates, poverty, drug problems and teen pregnancy. The few public servants who actually care about the state are outnumbered by the others.
Great to see that Doogan is now spending his time on a petty vendetta and his own personal agenda. With a 90-day legislative session, you’d think he has more to do. People around the US are collecting food and donations for the citizens of his state living in the villages of rural Alaska while Doogan spends his time outing a blogger. That’s the best use of his time? Nice. What a jerk.
Count me in as one of the lower-48ers who will contribute to anyone who runs against him.
By: BJA on March 28, 2009
at 4:24 am
Something to look at.. interesting to say the least.
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/01/mike-doogan-our-democrat-of-month.html
By: Annette on March 28, 2009
at 5:32 am
@Annette – yeah, we liked Doogan when he was fighting with you guys over the Tasergate nonsense.
Now, after he’s been slamming Palin on the stimulus, not so much. And especially not after this thing with Mudflats.
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 5:51 am
Rep. Doogan seems to have missed the concept of serving his constituents.
His hostility is overwhelming, and I find this lashing out to resemble a sociopath. How the hell does someone like that get elected?
By: Amy on March 28, 2009
at 6:15 am
JDFrankl reminded me of our revolutionary history as a nation. John Adams wrote, anonymously.
Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people.
The “Novanglus” Papers, Boston Gazette, (1774 – 1775) No. 3
Mike Doogan utilized his arbitrary power to destroy a form of needed journalism — anonymity in troubled times. — and harm, with callous disregard, a real person. He should be ashamed. Unfortunately, I know he will not.
By: AlaskanChicagoan on March 28, 2009
at 6:52 am
Speaking of privacy violations:
http://www.palindeception.com/blog/2009/03/taking-off-kid-gloves.html
Let me say I’m absolutely not conflating the people here with that site. We have some nuts on the pro-Palin side, too. I’m just curious about the reaction of Palin detractors to sites like “Palin’s Deceptions”. Are children fair game?
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 7:13 am
Just an fyi – here is the Supreme Court Statement/Ruling re: anonymity in cyberspace and private discourse. This statement would indicate that DooDooDoogan has violated someone’s civil rights for just a start:
The right to anonymity is VITAL to our political system. Check out the following quote from a US Supreme Court case upholding the right to such communications.
This is taken from the EFF web page
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
” Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
” Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society. ”
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 7:25 am
Basheert–you are exactly right. Now, it is one thing if the media decides to “out” someone. It may or may not be an invasion of privacy depending on the circumstances and the laws of a particular state. However, it is under most circumstances not a civil rights violation. In this case, Doogan was acting in his official capacity, on state time, using state resources. It therefore was a civil rights violation for purposes of a section 1983 claim.
It appears that Doogan confused his role as a former journalist with his current role in government and assumed that what might have been appropriate to the former role would have been appropriate to the current one. And that was his fatal error–to substitute his personal opinion of what was appropriate for an understanding of what is off-limits to the government.
By: Donna on March 28, 2009
at 8:04 am
If you want to really express your outrage, you should write an email to the Democrats with the real power, the Minority Leader and Minority Whip. There email addresses are rep.beth.kerttula@legis.state.ak.us,
rep.david.guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us .
Here’s the email I sent:
Dear Minority Leader Kerttula and Minority Whip Guttenberg,
You may or may not be aware of this but a fellow member of the Democratic Caucus, Rep. Mike Doogan, has taken it upon himself to trample upon the privacy of a citizen of Alaska. Rep. Doogan recently unilaterally and maliciously revealed the identity of a anonymous female blogger who writes the site Mudflats. Rep. Doogan’s actions were reprehensible and will involuntarily expose this poor woman and her family to the harsh light of the public media spotlight.
Please find below my email to Rep. Doogan complaining about his deplorable actions. I hope that you will take this matter under advisement and consider how poorly these actions by Rep. Doogan tarnish the image of the Democratic Party in Alaska.
If you want to really spread the word, you should email the Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics. Their emails are Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us,
Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us,
Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us,
Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us .
Here’s the email I sent:
Dear Reps. Coghill and Gardner and Sens. Stevens and Wagoner,
You may or may not be aware of this but a member of the Alaska House of Representatives, Rep. Mike Doogan, has taken it upon himself to trample upon the privacy of a citizen of Alaska. Rep. Doogan recently unilaterally and maliciously revealed the identity of an anonymous female blogger who writes the blog Mudflats. Rep. Doogan’s actions were reprehensible and will involuntarily expose this poor woman and her family to the harsh light of the public media spotlight.
Please find below my email to Rep. Doogan complaining about his deplorable actions. As members of the Alaska legislature’s Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics, I hope that you will take this matter under advisement and consider how poorly these actions by Rep. Doogan tarnish the image of the Alaska legislature.
By: Library Grape on March 28, 2009
at 8:06 am
Doogan may be immune to your criticism, but perhaps his colleagues might be able to deal with him more effectively:
Click to access whoswho.pdf
senator_con_bunde@legis.state.ak.us
senator_bettye_davis@legis.state.ak.us
senator_fred_dyson@legis.state.ak.us
senator_johnny_ellis@legis.state.ak.us
senator_kim_elton@legis.state.ak.us
senator_hollis_french@legis.state.ak.us
senator_lyman_hoffman@legis.state.ak.us
senator_charlie_huggins@legis.state.ak.us
senator_albert_kookesh@legis.state.ak.us
senator_lesil_mcguire@legis.state.ak.us
senator_linda_menard@legis.state.ak.us
senator_kevin_meyer@legis.state.ak.us
senator_donald_olson@legis.state.ak.us
senator_joe_paskvan@legis.state.ak.us
senator_bert_stedman@legis.state.ak.us
senator_gary_stevens@legis.state.ak.us
senator_gene_therriault@legis.state.ak.us
senator_joe_thomas@legis.state.ak.us
senator_thomas_wagoner@legis.state.ak.us
senator_bill_wielechowski@legis.state.ak.us
representative_alan_austerman@legis.state.ak.us
representative_bob_buch@legis.state.ak.us
representative_mike_chenault@legis.state.ak.us
representative_sharon_cissna@legis.state.ak.us
representative_john_coghill@legis.state.ak.us
representative_harry_crawford@legis.state.ak.us
representative_nancy_dahlstrom@legis.state.ak.us
representative_mike_doogan@legis.state.ak.us
representative_bryce_edgmon@legis.state.ak.us
representative_anna_fairclough@legis.state.ak.us
representative_richard_foster@legis.state.ak.us
representative_les_gara@legis.state.ak.us
representative_berta_gardner@legis.state.ak.us
representative_carl_gatto@legis.state.ak.us
representative_max_gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us
representative_david_guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us
representative_john_harris@legis.state.ak.us
representative_mike_hawker@legis.state.ak.us
representative_bob_herron@legis.state.ak.us
representative_lindsey_holmes@legis.state.ak.us
representative_kyle_johansen@legis.state.ak.us
representative_craig_johnson@legis.state.ak.us
representative_reggie_joule@legis.state.ak.us
representative_scott_kawasaki@legis.state.ak.us
representative_wes_keller@legis.state.ak.us
representative_michael_kelly@legis.state.ak.us
representative_beth_kerttula@legis.state.ak.us
representative_bob_lynn@legis.state.ak.us
representative_charisse_millett@legis.state.ak.us
representative_cathy_muñoz@legis.state.ak.us
representative_mark_neuman@legis.state.ak.us
representative_kurt_olson@legis.state.ak.us
representative_pete_petersen@legis.state.ak.us
representative_jay_ramras@legis.state.ak.us
representative_woodie_salmon@legis.state.ak.us
representative_paul_seaton@legis.state.ak.us
representative_bill_stoltze@legis.state.ak.us
representative_william_thomas@legis.state.ak.us
representative_chris_tuck@legis.state.ak.us
representative_peggy_wilson@legis.state.ak.us
By: DrChill on March 28, 2009
at 8:08 am
VidOmnia
The hacker that violated Sarah Palin’s email account should be punished and he was. However, Governor Palin was also conducting State business on a private email account-a clear ethics violation and probably illegal-why wasn’t she punished.
Conservatives are intellectual midgets. You wanna compare an elected representative outing an anonymous blogger to Joe the Plumber? Seriously? He was grasping for his 15 minutes. That you would attempt such an ill thought comparison speaks volumes about your feable intellect. But then…you’re a conservative-so no big surprise.
By: Sean on March 28, 2009
at 8:09 am
VidOmnia:
“Let me say I’m absolutely not conflating the people here with that site. We have some nuts on the pro-Palin side, too. I’m just curious about the reaction of Palin detractors to sites like “Palin’s Deceptions”. Are children fair game?”
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU ON??? Planet Palin? She put her own children out on the world stage. Palin outed Palin’s own family! Yeah. Kids are off limits. Maybe you should email the governor…
Furthermore, your comment “we have some nuts on the Pro-Palin side, too”
NEWSFLASH!!! If you’re ON the Pro-Palin side….YOU ARE NUTS!!!!
By: Sean on March 28, 2009
at 8:15 am
Sean–below the belt. There are many conservatives who are very intelligent. There are many liberals who aren’t. You diminish the importance of the issue with statements like that.
The issues are separate. Yes, the hacker should be punished. By doing what he did, he found that Palin was acting inappropriately. I believe that, once the emails are released, there well may be repercussions for her. Certainly, in my state, she could be personally sued for attempting to violate the open records law by using a private account to try to hid what should be public documents. I do not know about the law in Alaska but, if nobody has brought such a claim, how would she be “punished?” It doesn’t happen by itself. My bet is that this will happen in phases–first, getting the emails. After that, it well may be that something of significance happens to Palin, as it should.
By: Donna on March 28, 2009
at 8:19 am
Even the Supreme Court is Appalled by Doogan
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
These are some more excerpts from the case cited by Basheert above.
“Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind.” Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. [n.4] Despite readers’ curiosity and the public’s interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one’s privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. [n.5] Accordingly, an author’s decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
“The freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary realm. In Talley, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the distribution of unsigned handbills urging readers to boycott certain Los Angeles merchants who were allegedly engaging in discriminatory employment practices. 362 U.S. 60. Writing for the Court, Justice Black noted that “[p]ersecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.” Id., at 64. Justice Black recalled England’s abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel prosecutions, and he reminded us that even the arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Id., at 64-65. On occasion, quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent. Thus, even in the field of political rhetoric, where “the identity of the speaker is an important component of many attempts to persuade,” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U. S. ___, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 13), the most effective advocates have sometimes opted for anonymity. The specific holding in Talley related to advocacy of an economic boycott, but the Court’s reasoning embraced a respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes. [n.6] This tradition is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard won right to vote one’s conscience without fear of retaliation. ”
“That tradition is most famously embodied in the Federalist Papers, authored by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, but signed “Publius.” Publius’s opponents, the Anti Federalists, also tended to publish under pseudonyms: prominent among them were “Cato,” believed to be New York Governor George Clinton; “Centinel,” probably Samuel Bryan or his father, Pennsylvania judge and legislator George Bryan; “The Federal Farmer,” who may have been Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia member of the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence; and “Brutus,” who may have been Robert Yates, a New York Supreme Court justice who walked out on the Constitutional Convention. 2 H. Storing, ed., The Complete Anti Federalist (1981). A forerunner of all of these writers was the pre-Revolutionary War English pamphleteer “Junius,” whose true identity remains a mystery. See J. M. Faragher, ed., The Encyclopedia of Colonial and Revolutionary America 220 (1990) (positing that “Junius” may have been Sir Phillip Francis). The “Letters of Junius” were “widely reprinted in colonial newspapers and lent considerable support to the revolutionary cause.”
“Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”
Tyrants like Doogan!
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
By: ratfishtim on March 28, 2009
at 8:20 am
The question was raised about sites like Palindeception. Actually, so long as the author doesn’t do anything unlawful (like publish medical records obtained without an authorization), it’s legit. Palin put the issue squarely in front of the public for her own political reasons.
As for kids, it depends on the circumstances. When Bristol Palin gives interviews, she can’t complain when she’s discussed. If someone tries to keep their kids private, different story.
Do I think kids are fair game? Not usually. Do I think spouses are fair game? Not usually. But is it unlawful to write about them? Usually. That’s the distinction–press that I might find distasteful is still constitutionally protected so that others who do not find it distasteful can have access to it.
By: Donna on March 28, 2009
at 8:44 am
@Sean
Why attack me personally? I’ve shown respect to people here.
And how is having your family appear in public “outing”? As I’ve said before, I’ve frequently seen the Obama girls in public, and in media profiles of the Obama family. Before that, I always saw Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter on their parents’ campaigns when they were children. But they weren’t attacked.
The funny thing about the e-mail hack is that the perpetrator found absolutely nothing illegal or incriminating. If he had, it would have been everywhere.
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 8:53 am
Donna, Bristol Palin was under assault long, long before she gave that interview.
Did Trig Palin give any interviews? Did Tripp Johnston? Those kids will be in school in a few years and will have to learn to live with other kids throwing these wild accusations at them about their mothers. Isn’t that sad?
How about Track Palin? I’ve never seen him in front of a reporter, but if you Google his name you find the worst kind of slime. Never mind that he’s currently serving under President Obama, risking his life in Iraq escorting the civilian Provincial Reconstruction Teams in one of the more dangerous areas of Iraq, Diyala.
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 8:59 am
How about this: everyone agrees to stop bringing Palin into this comment thread. Because really, this isn’t about her.
Discussions about Palin’s privacy, or lack thereof, can go to some other blog post with its own comments.
By: @jmproffitt on March 28, 2009
at 9:03 am
Here is my email to Doogan….I will post any response:
Mr. Doogan,
Even here is Mexico, we who follow politics are aware of the small and vengeful nature of Alaskan politics.
With the vile outing of Mudflats, you have amply demonstrated the truth of this.
You might liken Mudflats to a writer of editorials…which are often unsigned…so that the author may express him or herself freely.
Or…to the American revolutionary writers of the Federalist papers…written anonymously.
I wonder if you realize just how foolish and truly vindictive you actually appear?
Sincerely,
XXXXXXXX..one who blogs anoymously here in Mexico…for my own protection.
By: Xicalli on March 28, 2009
at 9:18 am
VidOmnia…I was out of line with some of my discourse.
Apologies.
However, your analogies lack logic. Especially regarding JTP. He never wanted anonymity. Mudflats did. End of story.
By: Sean on March 28, 2009
at 9:19 am
I hope you guys were as outraged about Helen Jones-Kelly and Joe Wurzelbacher as you are about Mike Doogan and AKM.
—————
There’s a big difference. Joe Wurzelbacher chose to put himself in front of a camera and expose himself. AKM has not done that. It was her choice. It was not up to Mr. Doogan to take away that choice from her.
Is Mr. Doogan going to take responsibility if some right wing nut job shoots AKM or one of her family members?
By: Kate Henry on March 28, 2009
at 9:23 am
What I don’t think I have seen discussed in the comments … Doogan cites as one reason he outed Mudflats is that she was influencing public policy? What policy has she influenced? (Not mind you that there isn’t some policy we bloggers mindful of SP’s positions wouldn’t like to influence). She maybe influenced some public opinion, but that is different. She (Mudflats) is entitled to her opinions and we are entitled to ours and we are entitled to read her opinions and maybe be influenced by them! Bottom line is Doogan crossed a line. He should be held accountable legally for the misuse and abuse of state resources to violate a citizen’s First Amendment’s rights! And furthermore, if anyone wants to contact me I will be happy to give my name, address, and phone number to discuss this issue and the rights of the blogs that made it emotionally and physically possible for me to survive this last election. I wish I could just focus on the positive outcome and the work that is to be done, but with the negative spiel still spewing forth from the GOP, Rush, Steele, not to mention your own SP and her political aspirations, there is unfortunately no rest for the weary!
By: Peggy Pierce on March 28, 2009
at 9:36 am
Thank you for the post. I find Doogan’s Rovian tactics disgusting. I read over at the “Flats” that it is sad to see Dem’s fighting amongst themselves. I don’t see it as fighting amongst “ourselves”, but holding “our own” accountable.
AKM is STILL my hero and posting as a man, woman, frog, anonymous, or on her real name does not change the fact she blogged with integrity and honestly. She was able to document and back up her posts. The fact the Doogan got a little put off at being called out on his netiquette says A LOT about the man.
By: sillywhabbit on March 28, 2009
at 9:47 am
Although I am waiting for the appearance of a “Mike Doogan is a Tool” Facebook group, in the meantime, all you fans of AK Muckraker and the ‘flats, and of our general Constitutional rights to free speech and privacy as American citizens, add the “Poor form, Mike Doogan” Flair to your FB page.
Go to the Flair application and search for “Mudflats” or “Doogan.” You can put a Flair application box on your FB profile page and choose the “Poor form” Flair as your post.
Beyond outing AKM, Mike Doogan is really a pitiful excuse for an elected official if he sends such snappy, rude emails in reply to ANY email correspondence he receives from anyone. From the looks of all of his inappropriate email responses that are being posted by blog commenters across the board, he should be removed from office for misusing the technology resources of the state of Alaska. Does this man need to be institutionalized? Is he really that unable to change with the times? His pent up anger is frightening.
***********************FROM SHANNYN********************http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62508578215
By: JBDC on March 28, 2009
at 10:02 am
VidOmnia does raise some good points. Yes, Samuel Wurzelbacher became a subject of public interest when he approached Obama, and yes, the press does become fixated on certain public figures. Most of the information that was published was already in the public domain. Employees of the State of Ohio could have accessed information from the DVM and child support agency legally, but decided to do it illegally and surreptitiously. And there is no question that hacking Sarah Palin’s private e-mail account – regardless of the reason she chose to use a private account to conduct state business or the stupidity of doing so – is illegal.
We are individuals. We choose what to cheer and what to condemn, and sometimes our personal beliefs cloud our better judgement and sense of basic right and wrong.
I didn’t need to read any information on either Wurzelbacher or Palin that was not previously in the public domain in order to form my opinions, and that may influence my own opinion on the clear attempts to trample on (their) right to privacy.
On a historical note, is anyone interested in the original intention of the privacy rights enshrined in the Third Amendment?
By: MizzR on March 28, 2009
at 10:16 am
VidOmnia: I just wanted to respond to your question about Bristol Palin. Specifically, I want to note that in fact AKMuckraker was very restrained about the Palin Family Tree Was Sarah Really Pregnant Saga, and discouraged idle speculation on the issue both on the blog and the forums. Some visitors to the site tended to cast aspersions. AKM was not one of those, and in fact acted to keep the discussion civilised when the discussion on other blogs and forums was much more speculative.
Yes, there are people who have a fascination with the gap between Palin parent politics and the reality in which their children live, and to be honest I (as a non-US citizen who merely sees US politics as a spectator sport) have to stick my hand up and admit to being one of them – US politics is a good laugh when there’s nothing on telly – but AKM has a more adult and restrained attitude than I do. She has been calm and thoughtful and unusually conscientious in terms of reference to primary sources, and deserves respect.
By: Not outed yet, Doogan on March 28, 2009
at 10:17 am
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=62508578215
Facebook page about Doogan
By: shannynmoore on March 28, 2009
at 10:29 am
actually, I meant to say is it “lawful” to write about the kids–and yes, it is. Does that mean I like it? No. But it is lawful.
Vid–I apparently am not doing a good job making the distinction. It doesn’t matter whether I think Trig or Track or Tripp “asked” to be in the public eye. It matters that people are free to discuss them so long as they do not break the law in the process (I continually go to the example of medical records). Now, I believe that Palin has caused particular interest in them because she has portrayed herself as a particular sort of person with a particular sort of family and the reality doesn’t seem to comport with the image she is creating. And so I believe the media/blog interest in them is something understandable and for which Palin bears responsibility.
As for the Obama girls, they are of interest because of their father’s position. They will be written about and discussed. But because there isn’t the same dissonance between the reality and image, there will be less to say.
It’s apples and oranges. Covering the Palin children is lawful and constitutional, whether or not I personally believe that certain of the coverage is seemly. Disclosing AKM’s identity was unconstitutional.
By: Donna on March 28, 2009
at 10:30 am
Great job on KO, Shannyn. Finally got to watch the clip online. Brava!
By: Bea on March 28, 2009
at 10:46 am
@Donna – I understand your point of view, though I disagree. But I understand we likely won’t convince each other.
@Sean – apology accepted.
And Joe the Plumber is an even more divisive issue – I’ll drop it. But I hope at least I’ve caused some people to think about parallels.
I consider Jeanne at Mudflats to be a friend of mine, regardless of our polar-opposite political philosophies. As I’ve joked with her recently – if James Carville and Mary Matalin can stay married, then at least all of us can be friendly with each other. I’ve always respected Mudflats because that blog has decried attacks on the Palin children. I wish all Palin detractors could live up to her standard of civility – including the people in the comments here.
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 10:46 am
VidOmnia:
Agreed –
The topic was not SP – it is AKM and what Doogan did and the apparent illegality of his actions. Fortunately in a court of law, the opinions won’t matter, in considering if he is guilty of misuse of Office or a Civil Right’s case in a Federal Court or violation of the Alaska 2nd Degree Statute against Stalking.
If Doogan has committed what appears to be multiple criminal actions, he should be held responsible. That will hopefully take place and he will be the one who will pay a price for his actions.
I believe many people on the blogs are very concerned that this seems to be a personal vendetta against an individual – that is being perpetrated by an elected individual using State Resources. Perhaps you are not seeing that the outrage here is that is being done in a vindictive and malicious way to a private citizen. If he is not stopped from doing this to AKM, who is the next target of the nutjobs?
When he is found guilty, I will be kind and send him a “thinking of you” card to his cell.
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 11:00 am
Basheert, as a conservative who believes in the Constitution and in individual liberty, I am just as disgusted with Doogan as you are.
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 11:02 am
C4P has posted on this here:
http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/03/name-that-party-at-huffington-post.html
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 11:04 am
VidOmnia wrote,
“Before that, I always saw Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter on their parents’ campaigns when they were children. But they weren’t attacked.”
You obviously didn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh much. He was always making fun of how ugly or homely Chelea Clinton was. That might not be the same as digging into her personal life, but to a teenage girl, it’s every bit as mean and disgusting.
By: Rick on March 28, 2009
at 11:07 am
and you believe the comments on C4P are “civil?”
By: Donna on March 28, 2009
at 11:09 am
Donna, we don’t tolerate personal attacks or off-topic nonsense at C4P. We had some of that stuff after Celtic Diva filed her silly Arctic Cat complaint, and we deleted all of those comments.
If you ever see something at C4P you object to, e-mail me at vid.omni@gmail.com. If it’s out of line, it’ll be deleted, I promise.
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 11:21 am
VidOmnia – So there comments are okay with you? —
Let the self-rigtheous lefties hang themselves with this one.
A-holes are Party independent.
Our very own VO leaves a nice comment over there telling them that he supports Mudflats’ right to remain anonymous, and then the crackbrained weirdies turn on VO.
I was looking for the lovely Obutt comment I read last night, but wasn’t too committed to looking harder.
By: Crabby Patty on March 28, 2009
at 11:49 am
Thanks VidOmania – the term conservative applies to many people with many different views. Being a conservative doesn’t have to mean you are a wack job but then again, neither does identifying yourself as a liberal progressive.
There is room for all views and civil discourse – without personal attacks. We disagree obviously, but then again, we could probably find agreement on other things in our lives.
Again this thread was not about Palin, it was about Doogan and his actions. My personal belief is that Alaska really needs to do something about him, preferably through a trial – a hefty fine – and some nice jailtime. If the legal ramifications presented here are accurate, we may all see this happen.
Then we can all relax and enjoy the show!
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 11:53 am
Raw Story now covering the FAUX News attempted ambush of the Alaska bloggers:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/AntiPalin_bloggers_Fox_News_threatening_to_0327.html
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 12:01 pm
would you remove her name from your blog please?
By: DrChill on March 28, 2009
at 12:08 pm
Basheert–you are correct. The thread was not about Palin and only turned that way as a result of the suggestion that a different standard would be applied to a blogger who supported her being “outed.” The constitutional and tort ramifications would be identical if a government employee did it. And I believe that most people who take civil liberties seriously would find it as abhorrent, regardless of the blogger’s viewpoint.
By: Donna on March 28, 2009
at 12:10 pm
DrChill if you are referring to Raw Story, it is a national website/new site and not a personal blog.
And now, on a lighter note…this from the New York Times and something many of us have waited for for years:
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 12:17 pm
TheraP has now posted/blogged the AKM story on TalkingPointsMemo:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/03/bloggers-identity-outed-by-ak.php
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 12:32 pm
New facebook group started to call out Mike Doogan for his shameful actions: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82564017994
By: Library Grape on March 28, 2009
at 1:48 pm
Here is the HuffPost article. You can “buzz it up” so hopefully the story can be on the front page.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/famed-anonymous-anti-pali_b_180313.html
By: basheert on March 28, 2009
at 2:25 pm
VidOmnia – Re: Track. It is well known in this Valley that Track and a couple of his friends cut the brake lines on buses three years ago while Sarah was running for Gov. (spring of 2006). She made sure it was covered up and she sent him out of state to finish high school. Did my kids – and every other kid in this district – have to have an emergency day off school? Of course they did. Children could have perished if the faulty brakes hadn’t been detected in time. Have you any idea how many thousands of dollars this vandalism cost our already stretched thin district budget? Of course you don’t.
Can you envision any other candidate for governor in the Union having his/her kid place countless children in potential life-threatening situations and it get the big cover up? I think a lot of candidates might have realized their own children needed them more than they needed the job of governor.
Ah, but not Sarah Palin. Nothing and no one will come between her and whatever it is she wants – not Track; not pregnant (and now new high school mom) Bristol; not grandchild Tripp; not special needs son Trig. And that’s not mentioning Willow and Piper.
No one stands in Sarah’s way.
No one.
You must be so proud to support an individual of this caliber.
By: truth sets you free on March 28, 2009
at 4:12 pm
@Truth sets you free – surely you must have some evidence of this slanderous allegation against Track Palin, especially since others have denied the allegations:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/10/2008-09-10_reports_that_track_palin_vandalized_scho.html
By: VidOmnia on March 28, 2009
at 6:43 pm
The Doogan email is posted on the front page of the House Democrats website, http://www.akdemocrats.org I just sent an email to Beth Kerttulla ( Rep.Beth.Kerttula@legis.state.ak.us ) asking that the offending note be removed from the site. I think there should be more severe consequences for Doogan, but think that removing the note is something that we might be able to get done.
and by the way for anyone who read my emails above I have to admit there are some white lies in them. I said I have bought Doogans books, it’s not true but I did get one as a gift once. I said that I have voted for him before, also not true I planned to last time he was on the ballot since his opponent was basically insane but ended up writing someone in when I got in the booth. And last but not least, I said I was questioning whether or not I could vote for him in the future. There is no question in my mind on that issue, I will never vote for Mike Doogan, unless it is a poll for biggest douchebag in the State House or something similar.
By: dave on March 28, 2009
at 6:54 pm
And your point is that, because Barack Obama walked into Joe the Plumber’s neighborhood and Joe asked him a question, that made him a public figure ripe for “vetting” and having his records leaked to the media? Wow. Did AKM ask questions of Governor Palin in her blog?
—————–
VidOmnia: If all Joe the Plumber had done was to walk in front of a camera and ask Obama a question, no one would have paid any attention to him and no one would have vetted him. It only happened after he allowed the Republican party to use him as their poster child for the “man on the street”.
Once again, you are putting forth a straw-man argument that doesn’t hold water.
By: Kate Henry on March 28, 2009
at 7:26 pm
VidOmnia wrote,
“Before that, I always saw Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter on their parents’ campaigns when they were children. But they weren’t attacked.”
—————
And did you see Jimmy Carter or Bill Cinton hauling their children out in front of audiences like props? I know that I didn’t. You may have seen them in the background, but not up front, on stage at every event. You would think that the number of times Palin hauled poor Trig on stage she would have learned how to hold him properly. She threw him around like a sack of potatoes, not like a fragile Downs syndrome baby.
By: Kate Henry on March 28, 2009
at 7:32 pm
@Dave — you’re funny. That cracked me up, thanks for the mental health break.
I have relatives and friends in Wasilla and Palmer. Some of them Repub (like my husband & me) some of the Dem. ALL of them have said that Track was one of the boys who vandalized the school buses. They’ve also said that it is common knowledge, but will never ever come out until Palin gets thrown under the bus herself.
The Mat-Su is a small place. Can’t hide much there. There are a lot of allegations that have flown around that are credible, but haven’t been widely publicized. That doesn’t mean that they’re not true. It doesn’t mean that they ARE true. But I tend to think that if 10 out of 10 residents that I’ve spoken to who live in the Valley say that something is true, then, well, I guess that I believe that more than I believe ANYTHING that comes out of the mouth of a Palin, Heath or a Palin spokesperson.
But anyway………… all of that is off topic. doogan’s a jerk, what he did is wrong, and truth (commenter here) is speaking the truth. And thanks VidO for the civil discourse about points on which there are disagreements. Since you’re a person with a social conscience, as evidenced by your posts here, maybe you can track down the pro-Palin blog out there that has the photo & personal info of AKM and start taking some people to task in their comment section. Apparently it’s ugly there, so ugly that the moderator at Mudflats wouldn’t let the name of the site be posted there.
By: SMR on March 28, 2009
at 9:21 pm
@SMR – I won’t post a link to the thread with AKMs info, but it was some idiot commenters at Free Republic. I wrote the site mods as I saw it, and I also wrote AKM to apologize on behalf of conservatives.
I think that post has been removed…at least, I can’t find it when I search on some of the keywords I remember from the original post.
If anyone here sees anything like that again, please feel free to drop me a note at vid.omni@gmail.com and I will do my best to address it.
By: VidOmnia on March 29, 2009
at 4:53 am
Yes, VidOmnia, it IS still there and very easy to find. Obviously not addressed as of the time of this post. Quite a number of rather vile comments, I might add.
By: the problem child (an aunt, also) on March 29, 2009
at 6:39 am
VidOmnia wrote,
“Before that, I always saw Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter on their parents’ campaigns when they were children. But they weren’t attacked.”
Chelsea was ruthlessly ridiculed on SNL it was demeaning and way off base.
This was one of the first times I saw the distinction blurred between political / public figure, and family member of the same.
I think its fine normal and expected to introduce your family to the public, to complete the picture of a politician’s life.
The danger is – the more you make it a campaign issue the more likely it is that people will discuss it criticize it and attack it.
I think Palin -grossly- misjudged how much she could benefit politically from exposing her family to the limelight, without people challenging her claims about her family, and thus dragging her family into the sordid world of politics.
By: DrChill on March 29, 2009
at 8:14 am
Problem child, can you please e-mail the link to me?
By: VidOmnia on March 29, 2009
at 8:27 am
Although AKM had her full information posted for a very brief time last night in the “About” section of Mudflats, it’s gone now and they’re asking people not to use her name on other websites, either. I’ve seen it in these comments and it’s used as a Tag– I’m sure AKM would appreciate it if they were removed.
By: Dirge on March 29, 2009
at 9:28 am
I was so glad to see her post a short message today! I think she’s going to come back stronger from this, but Doogan had absolutely no right to do what he did!
By: futurexpat? on March 29, 2009
at 9:30 am
Thanks for the quick response!
I’m wondering if any of Doogan’s aides will tell whether he/they were using office time to work on this “outing.”
By: Dirge on March 29, 2009
at 11:23 am
I hope one part of whatever settlement AKM wins is a requirement that breathalyzers be attached to Mike Doogan’s computers — automatically shutting them down when the ‘ambient alcohol level’ reaches a certain point. This would save Alaska — and even Doogan — a LOT of trouble.
By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) on March 29, 2009
at 1:25 pm
you, munger and celtic diva are truly pathetic.
By: bob on March 29, 2009
at 3:15 pm
@Bea on March 27, 2009 at 3:36 pm–I’m pretty sure that he wrote opinion pieces so may not have actually been doing hard news and therefore may not have had any sources, anonymous or not. I’d have to go back and search the ADN webpages but have NO interest in paying for the not-privilage to do so…
By: InJuneau on March 29, 2009
at 4:52 pm
Prup–did you know there’s now some application that you can install on a computer that will prevent late night drunk e-mailing, at least with some e-mail programs? I think it only works between 11 pm and 4 am or something like that.
By: InJuneau on March 29, 2009
at 4:54 pm
@ VidOmnia, no, I won’t e-mail you, thanks. You can do your own googling with “”free republic” akmuckraker” and choose the first hit you get. It’s been cleaned up, but only marginally. There are still direct links posted to her business.
By: the problem child (an aunt, also) on March 29, 2009
at 7:30 pm
I emailed 3 times but got my emails back.
I don’t live in the state.
What his constituents should worry about and ask him if he feels that he should/could out them???
What if one of his constituents wrote an anonymous letter and he found out who.
By his definition of his “right” he could publish the letter with a name.
His act appears to be of retribution. Sarah Palin also benefits from this act of outing Mudflats.
Karma, mike doogan, Karma.
By: Diane on March 30, 2009
at 3:17 am
Bloggers can categorizine themselves however they want: “progressive”, “conservative”, “freedom-loving”, etc. … but if they don’t have the guts to identify themselves ..Oh, YES… they ALWAYS have excuses.. then I say they’re weak-minded little cowards – I don’t care what “side” they are on.
Lifting the rock off of these worms and exposing them is good for everybody. Good for Mike Doogan!
By: CWren on April 1, 2009
at 7:28 am
CWren – then why are you not posting under your real name? Besides that since we can’t trust the news or even get good news we have to rely on bloggers who are giving us real news not entertainment news. Thanks also to Colbert & John Stewart who actually show clips of our wonderful representatives catching them in lies & showing us how insane some of them are (regardless of whether they are “outing” republicans or democrats).
The real “worms” are the people who are afraid to print the real truth because they are afraid to. The real “worms” are also the people who are supposed to be representing us who continue to think they are above the law.
If Mudflats had been spreading lies and just making stuff up then it might just be a different story. She is such a good writer and she is very well-informed which is why she has such a loyal following. She backs up the things she says. She is providing a very useful service that ALL of us should be thankful for.
The real “worm” here was Doogan. He is a public official holding office to protect the people NOT to use his power for his own vindictiveness. I think he is petty & beyond juvenile.
By: Debbie from OH on April 2, 2009
at 1:07 pm
actually, CWren, I’d like your name as well. And where you live. See–today I went on to politico and read comments. They are the most hatefilled, vicious, ugly things I’ve ever read. Truly, there are people who are mentally ill and dangerous and they are posting about how they would like to see people die simply because they disagree with them.
To me, in light of the fact that there are people who truly would hunt someone down and do them or their family harm, it is prudent to keep one’s identity to oneself. But since you disagree, kindly identify yourself and avoid being, by your own terms, a worm.
By: Donna on April 2, 2009
at 3:11 pm
Well, “Donna”,
It seems that both Shanny Moore and Mike Doogan are willing to own their words.
Worms do not have that integrity. They are spineless.
And what is the worm in question doing now? Acting like a cry-baby.
She has only herself to blame. She got into the ring and throwing punches, then when someone landed a blow on her, she crumbled.
I don’t have a blog, “Donna”. I don’t spend my time throwing caca; I only occassionally comment and give my opinion. You’re comparing apples and oranges when you suggest I post more of my name than I already have – and if you, yourself are skeered by the internet, I suggest you turn off your pc.
By: CWren on April 3, 2009
at 5:49 am
CWren – “she crumbled”?
Sorry but “she” did NOT crumble. I suggest you go to her website before you comment further.
“She” has a blog that is absolutely fabulous and is one of the best writers around. “She” will make it further than (& has) Mr. Doogan. I think perhaps he was just a bit jealous to say the least.
“She” does have integrity – too bad you just can’t open up your mind & see it. The person with no integrity is the one in a public position using his public position to even a score.
By: Debbie from OH on April 6, 2009
at 2:26 pm
Debbie–I couldn’t agree more. The fact that “She” has chosen to communicate via a blog doesn’t entitle her to any less First Amendment protection. And the First Amendment protects the right to speak anonymously. CWren not only is ignorant about the Constitution, she is willing to substitute her personal opinions for it. And, of course, far be it from her to release her personal information although she is willing to attack someone else for their reluctance to do so. The fact is that “She” is, indeed, a terrific writer and very bright and well-informed. CWren is neither.
By: Donna on April 6, 2009
at 3:29 pm
I wonder if Rep Doogan’s momentary satisfaction was worth the disapproval he’s been facing these last weeks.
Maybe by now he’s gotten some idea of just why AKM preferred to write under a pseudonym.
By: Nan on April 6, 2009
at 6:00 pm
I guess I just don’t see why an anonymous blogger necessarily has a RIGHT to their anonymity. When you choose to enter the public debate, you make yourself a public figure and invite scrutiny. When you do so anonymously, you are practically begging for someone to unmask you, if they can.
This seems completely ideological to me. The folks who are outraged at mudflats’ unmasking would likely have no problem with an anonymous conservative blogger being outed by Kos or someone at the White House.
Prior to anymore spleen-venting, I say that some sort of consensus needs to be formed on the “rules” for this sort of thing, regardless of the blogger’s political orientation. Personally, my position is that if you want to stay anonymous, do a better job of shielding your identity.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 5:36 am
Ben–the issue has been squarely addressed by the Supreme Court. People have an absolute right to speak and to do so on the terms that are appropriate for them. Particularly in the context of political speech, where there is the possibility of censorship or retaliation, anonymous speech is a constitutional right. Further, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that the test for a public figure is based on the exercise of a constitutional right.
As for your belief that it is ideological, you are incorrect. Speaking for myself, I can say that I would be as offended by the “outing” of a blogger from any political persuasion. I would be as offended by the “outing” of someone whose speech is abhorrent to me. I am hardly alone in that viewpoint.
It isn’t an issue of “consensus” or of “rules.” It also, with all due respect, is not a question where your opinion or mine is relevant.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 6:30 am
Donna,
The First Amendment certainly DOES NOT “protect the right to speak anonymously.” If you believe otherwise, please supply the relevant text from the Bill of Rights and the corresponding case history spelling this out. Certainly the government cannot COMPEL an anonymous blogger to out herself. But if someone — even a legislator — finds out (using legal means) her identity and publicizes it, tough cookies. He has First Amendment rights, too.
What I generally find is that there is a certain portion of the population who will assert the First Amendment means whatever is ideologically convenient at the time. Thus, protesting and boycotting Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh is a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights (yes, it is). But doing the same thing to Sean Penn, Michael Moore, or the Dixie Chicks is a fascist, anti-free speech exercise that has a “chilling effect” on public discourse and possibly violates the First Amendment.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 6:33 am
Donna,
Ah. Well if Doogan has violated Mudflats’ Constitutional rights, someone should sue him! Any bets on how fast the judge would laugh such a case out of court?
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 6:37 am
Gee, Ben–now you are playing constitutional scholar. The authorities supporting what I have indicated have already been posted on this blog by several people. Perhaps you might wish to search. My 3 years of attendance at one of the top 5 lawschools in the country and 30 years of practice in the relevant legal areas might trump your personal beliefs.
Now, one other thing you can find are the authorities that support a 1983 claim against someone who uses his position in government to interfere with another person’s exercise of her First Amendment right to speak. You can also find that the Alaska constitution recognizes the right of privacy and, if you devote some time to researching the cases around the country that concern actionable invasion of privacy, you will find that disclosing the identity of someone who is trying to keep it confidential can be actionable.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but it would appear that you have no legal training or education. The fact is that cases based on facts such as this one have proceeded and are legally founded. Whether AKM decides to pursue such a claim or not is her business; however, she certainly has a basis to do so.
If an investigative reporter uncovers someone’s identity, it may or may not be actionable. If a private citizen does the same, it may or may not be actionable. If, as was the case here, a government employee uses government time and resources to do so, particularly in the context of protected speech, it is actionable.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 6:45 am
There are all sorts of lawyers who assert all sorts of things (see the Second Amendment “group rights” inanity the U.S. Supreme Court recently shot down). But assertions of law do not always stand up.
Again, I would dearly love to see Mudflats try to take this case to court.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 7:36 am
But it appears that you would “dearly love” it because of your belief that it would not succeed, which would validate your opinion that it should not. There are others who would appreciate it because it is an appropriate response to the misuse of a governmental position to retaliate against a constituent for publicly disagreeing with him. However, the ultimate decision as to whether to engage in litigation is always up to a client.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 7:42 am
Not necessarily. If Doogan did, as is alleged, use government time and money to dig up Mudflats’ identity, that would seem actionable to me. As you said, that would mean that he acted as an agent of the state.
But I do not believe that a private citizen should have the right of anonymity against disclosure by non-state entities, which would, in my view, include politicians acting on their own behalf using their own resources.
Bottom line: I would like to see this challenged and decided in court, rather than having an endless litany of assertions that Doogan’s action was unconstitutional with no actual resolution of the issue.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 7:53 am
Ok, well let’s tease that issue out for a minute. Should another private citizen be able to, say, bribe your internet provider to try to get your identity so he or she can disclose it? And where do we draw the line on Doogan–with his use of his official newsletter to disclose AKM’s identity? With him using his position to find out from, say, ADN who she might be? And where does our hypothetical private citizen abandon his/her rights? Can he/she comment every day on a blog? Or is it merely the act of starting a blog that, in your view, waives any right to anonymity?
I am not being combative here–these are difficult issues and courts have wrestled with them repeatedly. But I do take exception to your charges of ideological positions. I’m as liberal as they come and yet deeply offended by the prosecutorial misconduct (by Republican appointees) towards Ted Stevens. And I would as quickly take a case on behalf of a blogger whose views are distasteful in order to protect his or her right to speak.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 8:05 am
First of all, I take you at your word that you are not a hypocrite on this issue. My earlier comments about hypocrisy were intended to be general in nature, not directed toward you in particular.
As for you hypothetical about the ISP, it would seem to depend upon several factors, primarily: the terms of the service contract and the relevant state & federal laws regarding ISPs.
But what if someone figures out a blogger’s identity by context (i.e., from tell-tale clues dropped on the blog itself)? Or what if one of the blogger’s confidantes “leaks” her identity?
Regarding your question about bloggers vs. commenters, I believe the same rules should apply to both.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 8:35 am
We have been discussing this, for the most part, as if the threats to bloggers and the danger they may be in is hypothetical. A case that I learned about this morning shows they are not, and it doesn’t come from Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia, but Phoenix, Arizona — yes, from the home state of The Baroness Munchhausen’s ‘running mate.’
There a blog has been highly critical of the local police department, and of certain officers by name. (And I have no idea how accurate the charges are — or the political position of the bloggers — and it doesn’t matter.)
The response of the local police? To get a warrant on ridiculously trumped-up charges, invade his home, and seize his computer, his notes, and ‘everything he needed to keep blogging.
And Arizona is a little more civilized and peaceful than Alaska. AKM had good reason for choosing anonymity, and it doesn’t matter if others made a different choice. Everybody has to decide what they choose to risk.
(For more on the story above, see my blog . And the AKM story is too important to be hijacked, so I hope comments will be made on my entry or on the blogs I quote rather than here.)
By: Prup (aka Jim Benton) on April 7, 2009
at 8:36 am
Um, somehow the two cases seem a bit dissimilar. Somewhat like comparing the traffic ticket I got last week to a Soviet Gulag.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 8:53 am
That’s why we don’t leave these sorts of issues to personal opinion based on the facts of a particular case. It is precisely to protect against situations like the one in Arizona that the right to speak and to speak anonymously if one wishes is sacrosanct. We don’t let courts or juries decide whose situation warrants the constitutional protection.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 8:57 am
So I guess if a blogger’s friend leaks her identity, the friend should be prosecuted for a violation of civil rights, huh? And if I happen to figure out a blogger’s identity, I must keep it to myself lest I be prosecuted? There has to be a line somewhere.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 10:13 am
When you are outside the context of state action, it depends on (a) the sort of claim and (b) the circumstances. Typically (there are exceptions but they aren’t relevant here), you need state action for a 1983 claim.
When you are in the context of a statutory or common law privacy claim, the key is whether improper methods were used. That is sometimes a jury issue.
Take your two examples. Was the blogger’s friend told something in confidence and did she promise to keep it confidential? If so, there might be a claim. If not, there would not likely be one. As for you, if you figure out a blogger’s identity, you don’t have the sort of relationship where disclosure would likely be actionable.
There ARE lines but they tend to be lines with respect to someone in Doogan’s position who was acting on state time, with state resources.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 10:21 am
If a blogger’s friend tells another friend, that’s a far cry from an elected official telling an entire official mailing list and posting the information on a political party web site as if it were some kind of ‘coup’ against the blogger. “Take that, you noisy beyatch!”
(And a real friend would respect the blogger’s privacy, anyway…)
One release of information falls into the category of “gossip.” The other falls into the category of an “official government statement.”
Gossip can be diverted, but official government statements cannot.
By: Ennealogic on April 7, 2009
at 10:38 am
So has Doogan revealed how he came up with Mudflats’ identity, or are you just speculating?
If someone figured out or found out Mudflats’ identity using legitimate means and then leaked the information to Doogan, and the only involvement of “the state” was his printing the information in his newsletter, that seems pretty thin. Given that legislators regularly (and notoriously) abuse their newsletters for all sorts of things that further their political careers rather than advance official state business, this would seem like a tall hill to climb.
But that is why a lawsuit would be helpful. The plaintiff could subpoena Doogan’s office to determine if, in fact, state resources were used or abused to dig up Mudflats’ identity.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 10:39 am
Ennealogic — My hypothetical involved a friend (or other knowledgeable party) who leaked the information to a blogger, media outlet, or politician.
By: Ben on April 7, 2009
at 10:41 am
I agree
By: tom on April 7, 2009
at 12:22 pm
Ben wrote,
“The First Amendment certainly DOES NOT “protect the right to speak anonymously.”
Does anyone have the right to tap your phone and listen to your anonymous phone calls to see what ideas you are talking about? Or to see what you are saying about them?
No. The only way to LEGALLY listen to your anonymous phone calls is to first get a court order. To do that you need to convince a judge that there is good reason to believe you are up to something illegal. Mike didn’t care about anything illegal. He was pissed that he was exposed for the insensitive clod that he is.
The big difference is, Mike wrote the offending letter under his PUBLIC persona as a State of Alaksa Legislator. What he wrote or said under that persona is PUBLIC business. The public has a right to know and there is nothing wrong, illegal, or unethical in spreading that news. If the news were lies and gross distortions, then Mike would have legal recourse and might have gotten a search warrant to find and sue AKM. But no, he was in a snit because she spread the truth, Mike’s own words. Did it make him look bad? Yes. But he has no one to blame other than himself. He was the little bitch who sent out the letter in the first place. Instead of attacking the person who pointed that out, he should have been looking inward and realized he’d made a mistake and apologized and moved on. But the little girly man wasn’t about to do that. He had to get revenge. In that sense, he’s Sarah Palin’s twin. Both of those cancers need to be removed from Alaska’s colon.
By: twodux on April 7, 2009
at 12:25 pm
actually, as I think about it, the way to get the information would be by an open records (FOIA) request of Doogan. Doogan has refused to answer questions informally but he has a different issue if he is provided with a request for any documents showing communications with any person about the identity of AKM, any attempts to learn AKM’s identity, etc.
There is no privilege for such documents (comparable to what a journalist would have) and he has a choice–either to take the position that this was an official investigation (i.e., state action for a 1983 claim) or to turn over the documents to the extent he was emailing/phoning, etc. on state time or computers. No need for a lawsuit to get at the facts–it puts Doogan in a horrible position, which is exactly where he should be.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 1:12 pm
Donna,
You are wrong on two accounts. First, FOIA is a Federal law. The Public Records Act is the parallel State law. It exempts Legislator communications of all types, under a specific privilege, known as the deliberative process privilege.
Good luck with that.
By: Chris In Ak on April 7, 2009
at 1:21 pm
au contraire. First, I know full well that FOIA is a federal law. However, state open records statutes are frequently referred to as FOIA statutes. I was speaking colloquially.
Second, the deliberative process privilege does not extend to all communications to or from a legislator. My understanding of the scope of the privilege in Alaska, as articulated by the state supreme court, is that it requires the communication to be pre-decisional (i.e., before a legislative decision is made) and deliberative (i.e., containing opinions, recommendations or advice about a decision to be made by the legislature). Further, the deliberative privilege typically applies only to internal state communications, not to communications with persons outside of state government.
If a communication is not both pre-decisional and delieberative, the public records statute applies and the documents must be disclosed. Applying the Alaska Supreme Court’s criteria in this case is simple. First, this was not a deliberative communication–it had nothing to do with a decision to be made by the legislature. Second, to the extent it relates to a decision by Doogan (to disclose AKM’s identity), the decision has been made.
So, it’s not a question of “good luck.” It’s a question of the interpretations of your state Supreme Court of your statute.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 1:38 pm
And at what point does the Supreme Court get involved? Who determines what is predecisional or post? And, I would wager that email newsletters have never been litigated in the State of Alaska.
So, while the privilege may in fact be limited, testing those limits is terribly expensive in both time and personal cost.
So again, good luck, and I hope you have a big savings account. You are going to need it to find an answer to your questions.
By: Chris In Ak on April 7, 2009
at 1:46 pm
This isn’t an issue of email newsletters. It’s a simple request for communications to/from Doogan and documents showing what he did, in his office, on his computer, relating to a specific matter.
Typically, there are lawyers who interpret open records requests for each part of state government. In light of the clear precedent for disclosure here, it would be unlikely that such a lawyer would assert the privilege. In fact, it is unlikely that a lawyer would want to take the position that Doogan’s little stunt was official state business. Accordingly, the most likely response would be to release the records.
If records aren’t released, it’s not too terribly expensive a matter to file a case demanding them. The trial court would follow the Supreme Court precedent and order disclosure.
I’m not going to do it–I am out of state. But it would be a simple matter for a concerned Alaskan citizen to pursue.
By: Donna on April 7, 2009
at 1:50 pm
I’m new to this blog. Apologize for asking this though, but to OP…
Do you know if this can be true;
By: Meatrymayptom on April 9, 2009
at 5:09 am
I’m new to this blog. Apologize for asking this though, but to OP…
Do you know if this can be true;
http://www.bluestickers.info/ringtones.php ?
it came off http://ringtonecarrier.com
Thanks 🙂
By: Meatrymayptom on April 14, 2009
at 11:35 am
This isn’t an issue of email newsletters.
By: Park and go on June 2, 2011
at 6:40 am