An Example of Doxxing and an Example of Not Doxxing – Opinion

After the Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz proved herself to be a massive hypocrite by going after the anonymous Twitter account “Libs of TikTok” and showing up at the door of the family of the account’s user, doxxing became a hot topic. Lorenz was exposed by a reporter from a national paper. Lorenz’s Twitter account simply reposted videos already published. This outrage made the Left look worse.

(READ: Washington Post’s Dumpster-Diving ‘Reporter’ Taylor Lorenz Isn’t a Victim)

Now, Wednesday is the day. A Supreme Court leak exposed a draft of a decision which discussed Roe v Wade’s overturning. This leak quickly shifted much of the conversation away from the failure of Democrats on nearly every subject and toward old favorite outrage generators such as “women’s rights” and “reproductive justice.” However, behind the social fight over abortion is the fact that this leak from the Supreme Court was an egregious move by someone who is clearly more activist than professional.

There were many questions about whodunnit that circulated the Internet and people began to speculate. Will Chamberlain (a senior lawyer at the Internet Accountability Project) highlighted one suspect as the most probable at the moment.

Chamberlain issued a Twitter threat highlighting that Elizabeth Deutsch, a Supreme Court clerk, not only supports abortion and has made a legal case for religious hospitals being forced to perform them legally but is also married to a NYT journalist. She co-authored articles along with the Politico journalist responsible for breaking the Supreme Court leak story. I won’t go into too much detail here, but you can see Chamberlain’s tweet thread below.

Meet Elizabeth Deutsch. She works as a law clerk in the Justice Breyer office.

In my humble opinion she is the one most likely to have leaked Dobbs’ draft Supreme Court opinion. This opinion purports to invalidate Roe v Wade.

🧵 pic.twitter.com/V8mfc5hG2I

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) May 4, 2022

Chamberlain — as I do at this time — wanted to make it abundantly clear that this is merely speculation and no one should push certainty of blame on Deutsch at this time. While she was on the list of suspects she had the connection and the motive, it is not clear that there are any hard proof to support this. Therefore she remains innocent until proven guilty. No matter what your feelings or opinions, the facts will prove you guilty.

However, I am focusing on how Chamberlain discovered his information. You’ll notice in his tweet thread that every single piece of information he posted was taken from public sources, specifically things that everyone named posted themselves. Even the discovery of who Deutsch’s husband is was taken from an announcement she and her husband made to the New York Times.

Chamberlain was merely able to trace a line connecting two public pieces of information.

Duetsch is also a public official, specifically at the top court. Part of her job is to assist appointed justices of said court in their day-to-day, and these justice’s day-to-day is to rule on what is and isn’t the law of said land. For all intents, she is a public servant.

So let’s compare and contrast Chamberlain and Lorenz.

Lorenz took on a private citizen anonymously who managed a twitter account that didn’t represent any public office. The content “Libs of TikTok” posted was also publicly available videos and images from leftists who wanted to be seen on their respective social media platforms saying what they said and doing what they did. The person who ran “Libs of TikTok” did not wish to have her identity known and, seeing as how this was not a government office, had no reason to be exposed. Moreover, there was no reason for Lorenz to show up at the homes of the user’s relatives.

All private information was not allowed to be made public without a moral or legal justification.

Chamberlain only used information that was made public by someone in public office. Chamberlain also clarified that his suspicions are only suspicions, and not guilt. He did not expose anyone’s address, he did not show up that the homes of Duestch’s relatives, nor did he reveal information about people attached to Duestch that wasn’t already public as well.

This is a clear distinction. Chamberlain was not able to doxx Lorenz.

Chamberlain is being accused of being the same as Lorenz, which is why there are so many people. But you will see that they are completely different. Attempting to label them the same doesn’t work.