I don't think your question merits answering, because framing anonymity as something one has to "deserve" makes no sense to me. Saying it needs to be "deserved" suggests it's a privilege granted to people for some merit, rather than the default on the internet until someone either surrenders it willingly, or in this case, has it stripped by another party - so it's akin to privacy in that way. Does anyone "deserve" privacy? Silly question really.
> He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct?
As far as I'm aware, he only published his full name after he knew the article was going up.
> He already admitted he was overreacting on this point.
I can still see how he would initially be worried. Shining a light on someone known for looking into controversial topics and then following it up with "by the way this is his name and he lives in such-and-such town" is vaguely threatening, and inviting people who read the article and decide he's a Nazi or something to mess with his real life.
Incorrect. Someone making a mistake does not give you the right to exploit that mistake. That's what Eric Harris thought but it's not how civilized society works. The fact that Scott gave some information away (indirectly) at some point (which you call "publishing") doesn't actually change the significance of the actions.
That still doesn't answer my question. Sounds very abstract like you are trying to evade answering the question.
He didn't have anonymity. He already published his name. Someone that publishes their name doesn't deserve anonymity, correct?
> and that enabling his present and previous patients (he's a psychiatrist, so they're not always the most stable people) to discover his online persona would jeopardise his career.
He already admitted he was overreacting on this point.