It's Just A Blog . . . Right?

Surfing the link list tonight I came upon a post wherein a blogger gets a phone call from an ex-boyfriend (who I'll call Waldo and to whom she gave another pseudonym). He tells the blogger that he's been reading her blog. She has written extensively about this ex, apparently, and according to her, "I have not been kind to Waldo in my writing."

Needless to say, Waldo wasn't happy about some of the ways he'd been written about. And he goes on to tell her that what really bothers him is "how mutual acquaintances have been calling me ‘Waldo’ in my presence and laughing."

There is a break between conversations, and the blogger has some time to think all this over. She comes to some conclusions that, frankly, confound Me.

1. She thinks it's strange that Waldo has been reading her blog. "it was deeply odd for him to have been reading my blog for a year. " She goes on to list all the exciting things going in Waldo's life currently and how those should mean that he'd have no interest in reading her blog.

2. All the news, fit to print or not. "For a variety of reasons, I feel very adamantly that I’m not going to be bullied into taking down posts, and so that wasn’t even a topic I would consider discussing."

3. Somehow it's Waldo's problem that she wrote about his and her love/sex life. "I felt that if people are referring to him as “Waldo” in his presence, the man here known as “Waldo” should take it up with them, not me."

As to #1, the author is way too smart to actually believe that an ex isn't going to find a blog written by his or her ex and not read it. It has nothing to do with life circumstances -- it's human nature. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that anyone who claims to know about the existence of a blog by someone they used to sleep with and claims not to have read it at least once is categorically, 100%, no doubt about it, lying. No exceptions.

The second point, ok. I can understand and endorse in the abstract the concept that one should never be bullied into taking a post down. One should never do anything in response to being bullied, really. But the fact is there are plenty of posts that should be taken down . . . I read at least one a week.

I am not talking about any form of censorship; heaven forbid that this medium functions as anything other than a gigantic litter box for everyone with an Internet connection -- America and the world would be damaged in some vague but I am assured very real way, otherwise. I am talking instead about My (very naive) desire that we could all be a little more thoughtful, a little less the worst we can be simply because (more or less) no one's going to know who we are or remember what we did. I least I know it's naive.

Her third point honestly is beneath someone of her obvious intelligence. And really, this gets at the reason for this post.

Is everyone in our lives fair game? Is everyone who comes into contact with us potential blog fodder?

My answer to those questions is an unequivocal "no."

I realize that there are no "standards" in this medium, and I don't know if it's been tested in court, but My guess is that if you slander, libel, defame, etc., someone in a blog that's going to be admissible if, as in the case we're discussing here, it's obvious to third parties who is being written about.

But My feelings about it go deeper than the legalities. Don't we do enough offline to make each other's lives miserable? Don't we already cause enough in-person pain to others in pursuit of our own self-esteem without putting the cyber-cherry on top?

In the end, the conversation with Waldo leaves the blogger realizing that there were things she could have done differently, some things she might have handled better. That is not the most horrible ending, but really . . . should it ever have been necessary?