I missed this on Friday when the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s Metro blog broke it, but both Plunderbund and blogger interrupted posted the wrong phone number when they tried to make people like John Quinn “think before they do these kinds of disruptions.” The phone number has since been removed from both posts. In case you don’t know, John Quinn was the credentialed photographer who disrupted a recent Obama Ohio campaign event with a demand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
The posted phone number actually belongs to Jonathan Quinn, not John Quinn. From Tom Benning’s Metro post:
The calls have started to subside, but Jonathan, an undecided voter, just wants the harassment to stop.
“I really don’t appreciate it,” he said. “I did nothing wrong.”
Jonathan said he isn’t related to the heckler Quinn and doesn’t know him.
The blogs have since removed Jonathan’s number. Tim Russo of the Web site Blogger Interrupted declined to comment.
Eric Vessels, whose blog is Plunderbund, apologized for the mistake, but defended posting what he thought was the photographer’s number.
“I want people to think before they do these kinds of disruptions,” he said. “I don’t intend people to call and harass. I don’t ever ask them to do that.”
Quite plainly, Eric’s being weaselly there. He doesn’t ever “ask” people to harass. I guess his position is that if his readers choose to do that on their own, it’s not his issue. But without any harassment, how would publishing home phone numbers cause people to think about disrupting events- which is his claimed motivation. Or is it the threat of harassment that’s supposed to accomplish that? I don’t see how he can reconcile the two points.
Here’s Tim Russo at blogger interrupted:
First things first. I got his phone number wrong, and I’m sorry. I tried my hardest to identify the right phone number, and screwed up. We got everything else right, his address, his voter registration, and his employer. So, my apologies to the other Jonathan Quinn.
However.
I am not going to apologize for attempting to publish the real John Quinn’s phone number.
In other words, sorry for the error, but there’s nothing wrong with the policy. I think that’s wrong. Is it a good thing that saying things in public that some disagree with means that you become the victim of a virtual flashmob of harassment? I’d say no. Buckeye State Blog had earlier published John Quinn’s apparent home address, which I posted about here. In the comments, Tim Russo seems to think that because John Quinn was engaging in a “smear”- that is, propagating an untruth about Barack Obama- that that makes the publishing of contact info more appropriate. But of course, on many issues there will be disagreement on what the facts are, so that rationale will just lead to a situation where everybody’s doing it. To the detriment of the free exchange of ideas, in my opinion.
Previously this publishing of personal info had been nearly universally frowned upon, but I think with the nature of partisan politics, and the particular fierceness of Democrats’ desire to win this year, the envelope’s being pushed in ways we might later regret.
See also takes on this from Political Outsider and Naugblog. (Unfortunately, Matt Naugle at Naugblog publishes Tim Russo’s phone number, which rather undermines the case.)
And as a final note, both Digg and Barack Obama’s official website have published comments which recite the wrong phone number. Once something’s on the web, it’s hard to scrub it, even if it’s totally wrong.