Elon Musk was named to head up the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) (Photo by ... [+] Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)Getty ImagesThe names of six employees of the newly formed "Department of Government Efficiency," more commonly known as "DOGE," on Sunday were posted on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk. The billionaire tech entrepreneur, who also heads up DOGE, quickly responded to the posting of the names, writing on X, "You have committed a crime."For the record, Wired also revealed the names of the six engineers, who are described as being in their teens and early 20s. There has since been a wave of criticism that individuals with no high-level experience in the public sector were given access to the Department of the Treasury's payment system to carry out their duties.Vowing RetaliationOn Monday, Musk appeared less concerned by the public revealing and wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, "Time to confess: Media reports saying that @DOGE has some of world's best software engineers are in fact true."Yet, the individuals' qualifications three of whom don't have degrees continue to be the subject of debate online. Moreover, earlier in the day, U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin Jr. offered his support to Musk, posting a letter on X that read, "I recognize that some of the staff at DOGE has been targeted publicly," and added, "Any threats, confrontations, or other actions in any way that impact their work may break numerous laws."Since the revealing of the names, Musk's supporters online suggested the public revealing was akin to "doxing," yet, it remains unclear what "crime" (if any) may have been committed. A legal expert told this reporter on background he couldn't understand "what on earth Musk or the U.S. attorney" thinks was violated.MORE FOR YOUWas It Even Doxing?Even the claims of "doxing" may seem to be a bit of an overreach, as that is typically seen to involve the releasing of someone's personal information online without their consent. In this case, all that was released was the names of government workers taking the lead of a newly formed agency one that was also created without any oversight from lawmakers."Doxing has a broad definition, but is typically described as releasing private details about an individual into the public, specifically with the purpose of harming that person, where harm can range from embarrassment to promoting violent action against the individual," explained Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for the School of Information at the University of Michigan."Typically, government employees have less privacy protections than do private citizens. Listing individuals who are working on behalf of the government would not fall into previous definitions of doxing, though of course definitions can always change over time," added Lampe. "Whether doxing is a crime has traditionally been related to the type of information that has been released and how that information was acquired."What About Musk's Free Speech Absolutism?The release of the names of the "government" employees at DOGE and Musk's response also cast a very bright spotlight on his past claims that he is a free speech absolutist. It was just last November that CNN reported Musk reposted two X posts, which "revealed the names and titles of people holding four relatively obscure climate-related government positions."Now that the same thing has occurred with his employees at DOGE, Musk seemed to change his tune, suggested Dr. Julianna Kirschner, lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California."Elon Musk's free speech absolutism position should apply to all situations if he truly holds those beliefs. However, the leaked case of DOGE employees names has shown there are exceptions to the rule for Musk," Kirschner suggested.She added that merely sharing the names of people working for DOGE is not doxing."Actual doxing involves sharing personal information like phone numbers and home addresses, which would actually invade these individuals' privacy," noted Kirschner. "That did not happen here."Even if it were such a case, a free speech absolutist would not be concerned with the act of doxing."Absolutism from this vantage point suggests that any speech is valid, regardless of the consequences. The damage of doxing is well known, but a true free speech absolutist would not concern themselves with that," Kirschner continued.The more important point to note is that the now deleted account on X simply revealed information that may be relevant to the public."Knowing the identities of DOGE employees reveals their lack of public sector experience," explained Kirschner. "The public has a right to know how data is being used, and the account on X that revealed this information did a greater service to the public than Musk, a supposed advocate for free speech absolutism. What we are seeing here is a reflection of the common saying, 'Rules for thee, not for me.' From this inequitable perspective, free speech becomes a tool for obtaining power, and such a tool is discarded when it becomes inconvenient."