I have also noticed some of the new additions. But the fact that those you identify as “right of center” rarely publish pieces that diverge from the left-leaning dominant themes and, when they do, are compelled to repeatedly caveat and go overboard in the name of even-handedness and criticizing BOTH sides at least equally (preferably criticizing Republicans more) and other such indicators, from my perspective, undermines the legitimacy of your claim. And the fact that the left-leaning posts rarely if ever contain caveats or care to criticize BOTH sides is also an indicator of systemic bias, from my perspective. Indeed, the left-leaners I criticize often go beyond merely “liberal” to far-left, and often times are very abusive in ways that would never be tolerated from conservatives.

But, like I said, I do not hold “nastiness” for TMV. I actually admire much of what they have built. I just am critical of what I see as a serious and persistent skew and double standards that adds up to false advertising from the site that claims to be the flagship of the moderate/centrist blogosphere. Because they do claim the flagship position, what they say and do at TMV affects the rest of us at least a little bit. And the fact that they are so touchy that even talking about such criticisms gets at best ignored and at worst earns blacklisting is also something I object to. I’m guilty as anyone of being touchy at times, but I at least try to respond to criticism with substantial reasons/arguments/explanations for my viewpoints rather than combining an above-it-all haughtiness in public with a behind-the-scenes vendetta in retaliation for the audacity to even say criticism at all.

Also interesting that the Federalist Papers were also published under the pseudonym Publius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships. This tort may occur when a first party’s conduct intentionally causes a second party not to enter into a business relationship with a third party that otherwise would probably have occurred. Such conduct is termed tortious interference with prospective business relations, expectations, or advantage or with prospective economic advantage…
Tortious interference of business.- When false claims and accusations are made against a business or an individual’s reputation in order to drive business away…
Although the specific elements required to prove a claim of tortious interference vary from one jurisdiction to another, they typically include the following:

The elements of the cause of action are pretty simple and appear to my amateur eyes to be directly applicable to a situation where a blogger or commenter strips anonymity from a blogger and then uses that to affect the real-life employment of the blogger:

1. The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties.
2. Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
3. Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
4. Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
5. Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Because it involved a direct threat to contact the employer with the stated intention of getting me fired instead of just an outing alone, the situation that happened to me may have been even more directly applicable than Publius’ case. But after I finish law school and pass the bar (nothing I say now should be considered authoritative legal advice in any way), I would be very interested in taking any such case pro bono, if only to establish a strong deterrent against any continuation of such viciousness in the blogosphere.

BTW, those who criticize anonymity when commenting on public affairs should consider the fact that one of the most influential documents in the history of U.S. foreign policy — the “long telegram” that formed the foundation of the U.S. policy of containment towards the Soviet Union — was written anonymously.

BTW, I hold no “nastiness” towards TMV, even though the continue to publish Mullen’s slanderous and dishonest screeds regularly and have supplemented that with other abusive extreme-left contributors like Kathy Kattenburg. I do include them in my criticism of the “faux moderate blogosphere” because I believe they have shown a pattern of disproportionately hiring far-left contributors, consistently focusing exclusively on anti-conservative stories, and consistently ignoring stories critical of liberals. Even though it might be intolerable for them to talk about or respond to, it IS in fact fair to point out a clear pattern of ideological bias on a site that advertises itself widely as the premier source for “left, right, and center” perspectives. I don’t consider it “nastiness” to hold them to the same standard to which they regularly hold others.

But I do still read TMV, carry it on our blogroll, link to it, and subscribe to its RSS feed. My criticism is derived from disappointment in their choice to not be what they could be and what they say they are, not “nastiness”.

P.P.S. The recent direct threat to target me professionally did not come from Mullen. It came from a commenter (he is still welcomed at TMV, though I suspect Whelan would not be) and included a rather creepy level of cyber-stalking layered on top. And yes, my superior would have laughed very hard (in fact, he did, when I told him about it). But all that is beside the point of whether the behavior is worth condemning publicly when a conservative does it but only worth lesser actions (or silence) when a liberal does it.

There was also another recent incident where one of Rudi’s ideological allies in the comment threads directly threatened to send slanderous emails to a writer’s professional superiors to punish them for having what that person considered objectionable political views.

I would guess that supervisor would laugh off the pissy emails. Now if anyone could prove blatant lies or plagiarism, it would be a different story. You and Friedman can say the world is flat – just prove it with logic and facts…

There was also another recent incident where one of Rudi’s ideological allies in the comment threads directly threatened to send slanderous emails to a writer’s professional superiors to punish them for having what that person considered objectionable political views. Rudi was not involved in that, but there is also no evidence from Rudi’s pattern that he would object or criticize a fellow leftist if he had known.

LOL Guilt by vague association!!

Second point – I was unaware of yours and the chiefs blog war back in September of 2007. You also continue the nastiness even though SM isn’t there at the FauxModerateVoice anymore.

Third point – I would object to ANY threats to you or MvdG because you are both starting, or soon beginning an attempt at an academic career.The threats from Whelan, whose is established and really beyond any threats to tenure or his status at NRO is ZERO.

MvdG and others claim examples of conservatives bloggers outed – please show the evidence.

I assume that it follows the general pattern of academia to be overwhelmingly liberal in ideological orientation.

I have not seen it in the several schools where I have attended, researched, or taught. That could be because I have little contact with faculty outside of the science and math departments and politics was rarely ever discussed and certainly not in class. My wife was in theater and I had friends in business. From what I have seen through them, the theater departments was mostly of the left and the business departments were mostly of the right.

Rudi was supportive towards someone who outed two of the writers on this site by taking their private emails and publishing

I thought all of the writers on this site used their real names. This is a bad act, less so if the emails in question were directed to him, but it still should not have been done (particularly if context was not included).

There was also another recent incident where one of Rudi’s ideological allies in the comment threads directly threatened to send slanderous emails to a writer’s professional superiors to punish them for having what that person considered objectionable political views.

That is objectionable in a very similar way. Was the treat followed through with and, if you don’t mind, what were the consequences? I do hope that if the threat was followed through with your superiors gave it the appropriate (lack of) attention.

This incident and your principled response makes me wonder about your thoughts on Professor Watch List and similar groups and their actions.

He does work for South Texas College of Law. I would be surprised if an e-mail campaign to have him removed has not yet begun and I would be further surprised if there was not an active campaign to deny him tenure.

Unless South Texas is uniquely an outlier (and there would need to be specific evidence to demonstrate that), I assume that it follows the general pattern of academia to be overwhelmingly liberal in ideological orientation. That pattern holds even for schools in extremely conservative areas. For example, the University of Texas at Austin is one of the most liberal voting districts in the entire country and one of the most leftist campuses in all of academia. The fact that it is located in otherwise conservative Texas doesn’t make it conservative at all.

It is also possible that hiring and tenure at law schools is less prone to ideological bigotry than hiring tenure in the fields I am more familiar with. But given the strength of the evidence that ideological bigotry uniquely against conservatives is a problem broadly in academia, I would need to see some pretty persuasive evidence — far more than just the conveniently selective skepticism that liberals seem to always display when this particular issue comes up in whatever form.

Who did Rudi support outing?

On one occasion, Rudi was supportive towards someone who outed two of the writers on this site by taking their private emails and publishing out-of-context quotations from them on his blog while slandering the individuals by name in very sweeping and abusive terms.

Not long after that incident, Rudi went out of his way to try to create another conflict involving the same individuals by posting what amounted to “let’s you and him fight” comments.

There was also another recent incident where one of Rudi’s ideological allies in the comment threads directly threatened to send slanderous emails to a writer’s professional superiors to punish them for having what that person considered objectionable political views. Rudi was not involved in that, but there is also no evidence from Rudi’s pattern that he would object or criticize a fellow leftist if he had known.

I guess because I have so recently been a victim of a threat of professional “outing”, I take this issue very personally. And because of his record for hostility and bias, I do not consider Rudi to be a friend or ally in such a situation. I find Rudi’s sudden discovery of protectiveness towards this particular victim a bit convenient, that’s all. Rudi has not directly participated in any outing I am aware of, but I can’t see his current objections as being principled. I think that the only reason Rudi cares right now is because a liberal is being targeted. If a conservative was being targeted, I think it likely that Rudi would either be supportive of the outing or at the very least would remain conveniently silent rather than criticize a liberal for behavior that he finds outrageous from a conservative.