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. The outrage that a reporter for a national rag would expose the identity of a private citizen who ran a Twitter account that simply reposted already public videos was thick and the more the left defended Lorenz the worse they looked.

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

Fast forward to Wednesday, and we have a leak in the Supreme Court, exposing a draft decision that discussed the overturning of Roe v Wade. 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.

Questions around whodunnit began circulating around the internet and guesses were being made. However, one person, in particular, seems the most likely at this time and it was highlighted by lawyer and senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, Will Chamberlain.

Chamberlain released a thread on Twitter pointing out that a Supreme Court law clerk named Elizabeth Deutsch not only has a background of supporting abortion to the point of making a legal case to force religious hospitals to do them but also is married to a WaPo journalist who used to write at Politico and co-authored articles with the Politico journalist who broke 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's currently a law clerk for Justice Breyer.

And, in my humble opinion, she's the most likely person to have leaked the draft Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs, purporting to overturn 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. In a list of suspects, she has the motive and connection but there is currently no hard evidence that she is the leaker and thus is currently innocent until proven guilty. Whatever your opinions or feelings, guilt comes after the facts.

But what I do want to focus on is how Chamberlain came across 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.

All Chamberlain did was draw a line from one public piece of information to another.

Moreover, Duetsch works in public office, specifically the highest court in the land. 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. She is, for all intents and purposes, a public servant.

So let’s compare and contrast Chamberlain and Lorenz.

Lorenz went after a private anonymous citizen who ran a Twitter account that did not represent the public office in any way. 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.

This was all private information that had no moral or legal reason to become public information.

Chamberlain strictly used public information given to the public by a person working in public office. He also made it clear that his suspicions were strictly suspicions and should not be confused with 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.

The difference here is very clear. Lorenz doxxed someone, Chamberlain did not.

There is currently a lot of people accusing Chamberlain of doing what Lorenz did, but as you can see the two are entirely different. Attempting to label them the same doesn’t work.