Another piece I picked up from this week’s New Scientist is the suggestion that weblogs should effectively be forced to adhere to a code of conduct or be “black marked”. Here are a few apposite quotes from the full article, Bloggers lash out at ‘code of conduct’:
Perhaps inevitably, some bloggers have criticised a proposed “code of conduct” designed to curb the harshest online criticism.
A pair of internet luminaries suggested the code after a prominent blogger complained of threatening messages posted on her own blog and other sites.
Publisher Tim O’Reilly […] and Jimmy Wales […] proposed the Blogging Code of Conduct after Kathy Sierra [received] threatening messages [on her weblog].
[…]
A first draft was released this week […] has riled some bloggers, who accuse its authors of acting like media overlords and disregarding free speech.
[…]
The proposed code calls for bloggers to ban anonymous comments and delete messages if they are abusive, threatening, libellous, false, and if they violate promises of confidentiality or an individual’s privacy. “We take responsibility for our own words and for comments we allow on our blog,” the draft code states. […] The code also calls for ignoring “trolls” […]
[…] bloggers who adopt […] the code would adorn their websites […] a sheriff’s badge […] those who chose not to […] mark their websites with an icon of a stick of dynamite […]
[…]
“I like civility but prefer the ‘anything goes’ badge […] Censorship is a slippery slope […]”
Some other bloggers also complain that even a crude bar on anonymity could help control comments in countries with governments that are intolerant of free speech.
David Sifry, founder of Technorati [says] “One of the core principles that the Internet is built on is the principle of free speech […] If you really are a jerk, I don’t have to read what you say.”
“I’m not sure a code of conduct is the answer […] It makes about as much sense as me wearing a badge to have a conversation […]” [adds Mike Tippett].
Here’s a link to the draft “code of conduct”. Having read the “code of conduct” it isn’t as draconian as the news articles I’ve seen imply. But I’m still not hugely in favour. No, correction, I am still against.
I have a fundamental belief in free speech and civil liberty for everyone, however uncomfortable it may be. And any such code of conduct strikes me as censorship by the back door. As previous readers of this weblog will know I have a deep rooted moral objection to anyone making impositions on what someone may read, write, say or think. Either we have freedom of speech or we have censorship. And in my book there is already too much censorship (mostly covert) in the world. I may not like or agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If I disagree with you I can either engage you in debate or I can ignore your views.
Equally no-one – at least no-one of right thinking – would want to abuse or upset someone else. But sadly there are too many out there who aren’t right thinking. By focusing on them we give them the attention they mostly crave. As with “trolls” the best thing is to be grown up and ignore them. Let’s lead by example and not by diktat.
And this weblog? Well it would instantly be “dynamited” because of the occasional references to sex and equally occasional use of words like “fuck” and “bollocks”. Now just how pathetic is that!?