Interesting news article here about a proposed "Blogging Code of Conduct". Part of the proposal...
The idea came...
I understand the intent of this, but the right to free speech is compromised. While free speech should not include threats, libel, or abuse, the users that commit those acts are usually ignored anyway. Trying to restrict the way one wishes express them self shouldn't be done. If we allow KKK members to congregate and say the hateful crap they say, then I can't find the reasoning behind regulating what someone on the net would. Too, I believe we as bloggers all have the control to allow (or disallow) anonymous comments and police (delete posts from) our own sites.
Another comment stated:
I'm not sure who the "we" in this sentence is. Is "we" the public intellecuals of the blogosphere? Who decides who belongs in this "we" group? How do "we" decide what is something to be proud of? Sounds pretty pompous and elitist to me.
There will always be a group of people that say things just to get under people's skin. From crude offensive things, to downright hateful frightening things, all to get attention. When threats are made on the net, they should be handled the same way threats made in person are dealt with - contact the authorities and be more aware of things around you. I agree with NowPublic co-founder Mike Tippett when he says:
"...calls for blog content to be deleted if it is abusive, threatening, libelous, false or violates promises of confidentiality or rights of privacy."
The idea came...
"...in the wake of anonymous death threats posted on the blog of author and speaker Kathy Sierra."
I understand the intent of this, but the right to free speech is compromised. While free speech should not include threats, libel, or abuse, the users that commit those acts are usually ignored anyway. Trying to restrict the way one wishes express them self shouldn't be done. If we allow KKK members to congregate and say the hateful crap they say, then I can't find the reasoning behind regulating what someone on the net would. Too, I believe we as bloggers all have the control to allow (or disallow) anonymous comments and police (delete posts from) our own sites.
Another comment stated:
"Let's make sure that the culture we create with our blogs is one that we are proud of."
I'm not sure who the "we" in this sentence is. Is "we" the public intellecuals of the blogosphere? Who decides who belongs in this "we" group? How do "we" decide what is something to be proud of? Sounds pretty pompous and elitist to me.
There will always be a group of people that say things just to get under people's skin. From crude offensive things, to downright hateful frightening things, all to get attention. When threats are made on the net, they should be handled the same way threats made in person are dealt with - contact the authorities and be more aware of things around you. I agree with NowPublic co-founder Mike Tippett when he says:
"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. It won't make a difference. People don't need to sign pacts of civility to use telephones or send letters. I think the wisdom of the crowds, societal mores, and the expectations of civility will generally solve the problem, the Internet is just an extension of our everyday lives. Presumably, we are all bound by the social norms of our communities. Violate them and you are locked up."
No comments:
Post a Comment