There’s a big brouhaha over a Washington Post article by Taylor Lorenz revealing the identity of the obscure lady who runs the popular Twitter account @LibsOfTikTok. Apparently, people send her links to the most fashionably demented videos people post to Tik Tok and she curates an entertaining selection.

Printing her name and linking to her address in the Washington Post add nothing to the story but are effective pour encourager les autres: if you are thinking about having a pro-Republican anonymous social media account where you post true stuff, remember what Jeff Bezos’s newspaper did to this other person who tried that?

Meanwhile, another example of doxxing is getting less publicity. On Monday I linked to Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in which she was angry that a white man was allowed to serve on a jury despite his answering truthfully. Justice Sotomayor wrote:

Prior to trial, prospective members of the jury filled out a questionnaire that included the following questions:

“68. Do you sometimes personally harbor bias against members of certain races or ethnic groups?

“69. Do you believe that some races and/or ethnic groups tend to be more violent than others?”

To the first question, No. 68, the prospective juror at issue answered, “No.” But to the second question, No. 69, he answered, “Yes.” He explained that “[s]tatistics show more violent crimes are committed by certain races. I believe in statistics.”

That this citizen told the truth made Sotomayor very mad. But at least Sotomayor didn’t doxx the juror.

But Slate and a couple of other publications did. In his article “A Racist Juror Helped Send a Black Man to Death Row. Why Doesn’t SCOTUS Care?” Mark Joseph Stern printed the name of the juror, a completely obscure private citizen. So, for the rest of the poor guy’s life, his name entered into a search engine will bring up Stern’s foaming at the mouth article.