For those offended by the fact that this is the second Comment of the Day, I can only note that I haven’t posted a COTD for a while, so they can consider this one as making up for say, September 9.

Tgt has some uncomfortable truths about the practicalities of taking principled stands, in the context of my discussing the dishonest and bullying tactics of so-called online reputation protection services without specifically naming any one company.

There are gradients of this dilemma, which I’m not sure the author sufficiently acknowledges. For example, in the recent Defense of Marriage Act controversy in which law firm King & Spalding arguably dumped an unpopular representation because of inappropriate but no less threatening warnings from its biggest client, there are core professional values involved: once a lawyer ( or firm) accepts a representation, he or she may not, consistent with professional norms, drop the new client because of fear that the representation will have unpleasant consequences. There is no ethical obligation, however, to engage in a protest or civil disobedience when one objects to an abuse of official power. There is an obligation to do something, and it is ethically legitimate to choose a course that addresses the wrong without causing unnecessary harm to oneself or others. One not  cowardly by not being foolhardy.

Unless I accept John Adams’ rather perverse conviction that the only way one knows one is doing the right thing is when he is certain that the consequences will be personally ruinous, I don’t agree that I have failed an ethical obligation by choosing to flag unethical conduct without specifically inciting a company whose business it is to intimidate websites.

Besides, as I noted in my response to this comment, I am not through with these guys. Not by a longshot. But here is tgt’s Comment of the Day to my opening volley:

“We have a location where ethics and expediency clash. The ethical thing is to publish information about them into oblivion. The expedient thing to do is to ignore them, or tiptoe around the issue.
Nobody wants to be a martyr, but we’ve excoriated people on this blog for similar behavior. (Ex: Not reporting something as wrong. Not naming names of false accusers.) Where do we draw the line, and why? Is it just rationalization? Is it the difference between an ethics hero and an ethics neutral, or an ethics neutral and an ethics dunce? I’m pretty sure I could make a case either way, and I don’t know if I believe either.

“I know I’m guilty of similar behavior. I’ve given in on my principles a couple times recently. Going through airport security, I let myself by scanned instead of opting out so I would not inconvenience the friends travelling with me. In another event, I allowed a BestBuy employee access to my property, also so I would not inconvenience a friend. Do I lose my libertarian card for this crumbing, or were the relatively minor deviations offset by the avoided cost to my friends?

“I’d like to think that I would publish their names and face the consequences (so I could publish that behavior as well), but it’s easier said than done. I think we often forget that.”