You’ve seen his quirky grin all over the blogosphere during the Miers debacle, because he spent $1,500 in BlogAds to shout out something he truly believed.

But if you haven’t been following blog-spat-turned-into-email-spat-turned-into-legal-threats between Paul Deignan and BPhd and Wallace Hettle, it is a good reminder that one can only remain anonymous on the Internet (which BPhd wishes to do) to a certain extent, and that everything you say and do online should be held to the standard of “would I say this to the person’s face?” because someday you may have to.

The short version, as I understand it, is that Purdue PhD candidate Paul Deignan and University of Northern Iowa History Professor Dr. Hettle got into a disagreement on BPhd’s blog. BPhd (who prefers anonymity) banned Paul from posting, and deleted some of his comments (which, of course, she has a right to do, it’s her blog). Paul claims that she then alleged he was threatening her and spoofing IP’s, which he says is libelous. He wants to find out her identity in order to sue her. Dr. Hettle reportedly claimed that Paul had sent him threatening emails (a crime), which Paul denies and says that the false statement amounts to slander. Hettle subsequently (or previously?) called Paul’s PhD faculty dissertation advisor and allegedly made similar accusations, over which he is also suing or threatening to sue. Paul believes he will suffer damages from this libel and is “initiating a lawsuit to clear [his] good name.”

Jeff Goldenstein has gotten into the act, and summarizes this way:

To remedy this, the professor took it upon himself to call Paul’s faculty dissertation advisor (at a different school) to let him know—as a professional courtesy, you see—of Paul’s alleged poor form (which a review of the evidence will show consisted of nothing more than his arguing his positions quite civilly). This, after calling Paul both “a lunatic” and “homely” in an email.

Such is an absolutely unconscionable misuse of power. Further, it as an intentional effort to ruin Paul’s academic career. And because it was done explicitly to punish Paul for his social and political views on the legality of abortion (all of this took place in the context of a debate over Alito’s nomination), it is intellectual McCarthyism at its most baldfaced and cowardly.

So the moral of the story, for you bloggers and posters out there, is yet another reminder that as our online life becomes more and more an extension of our physical life, proof read objectively before you hit the “send” key, because someday you may have to read aloud what you have written in open court or on MSNBC.