« Can this industry be saved? | Main | WOMBAT 3 -- Day 1 »

O tempora! O mores!

Since when is setting a standard for civility an attack on free speech? Why does the blogosphere think it is exempt from the bounds of acceptable content in the offline world?

I'm sure many of you have been following the storm of discussion surrounding blogger Kathy Sierra (this NYT article sums up the whole thing). I'm astonished that at the end Robert Scoble is quoted that he is uncomfortable with the idea that there should be standards. I'm with Tim O'Reilly, "...managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech."

I'm also surprised this is such a controversy -- and worried about what it says about the state of our society. We don't tolerate bullying by 6 year olds in our schoolyards. We don't allow it at public gatherings like Town Meeting in my little New England town. And don't even think about phoning a death threat to the White House ...

Why should we tolerate cyberbullying, just because it "virtual"? As Kathy described, the fear and revulsion that the threats caused are completely real. While the location may not be "real", one of the great things about social media is the reality of the relationships you create. And like all human relationships, they must be governed by some degree of etiquette, protocols, courtesy -- whatever you want to call it.

Like Cicero (I'm sure many of my readers are fellow Latin scholars ;-), I lament "Oh, the times! Oh, the customs!" that we as a society think the right of the individual to say and do whatever he/she wants whenever he/she wants with absolutely no boundary is acceptable. Of course, spirited debate must be allowed and encouraged. Topics that may be considered by some to be distasteful, or even offensive must be allowed. Irony, even biting sarcasm have a place and snarky remarks can add spice to the debate. Maybe some lawyer can correct me, but when the speech crosses the line into threatening "hate" speech, it is no longer protected.

For the record, I routinely delete all spam comments -- am I stepping on the spammers' right of free speech? I say no, he's violating my right to carry on a conversation of interest to all of you.

And I will delete any comments that are profane, abusive, threatening, and generally off topic. Not only do those things interfere with my right to conduct an intelligent, interesting conversation, they have no place in a civilized society.

Posted by Jim Nail on April 9, 2007 at 02:30 PM | Email this post Permalink
Technorati Tags: , ,

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cdcdc53ef00d834fcd40f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference O tempora! O mores!:

Comments

Jim, I don't think anyone is calling for anarchic abuse as a standard of behavior. Rather, those of us who are uncomfortable with the guidelines offered by Tim and Jimbo, among others, are concerned that the free expression of ideas begins within the individual and not at the limits defined by society. That's not to say that there are not limits, but that those limits are dynamic rather than defined.

Posted by: Mitch Ratcliffe | Apr 9, 2007 3:29:55 PM

There are many ways to address this issue, but regulations as always only applies to those adhering by the laws of civility already. Bloggers today have the tools to manage/moderate/censor their blogs as they wish, so why do we need an additional set of guidelines here?

If threats and more serious offenses occur, then this is grounds for our existing laws to take over, so again, no need for a new set of regulations. Those who will bully will not stop because now the site is rated "NB: No Bullying". If people don't like the way a blogger censors, then let them start their own blog about the topics they wish to discuss, and if those participating in that community/blog threaten any one or libel someone, then they s/b prepared for long arms of the law to deal w/them as would occur in any other medium. While I'm very upset by what happened to Kathy Sierra, I'm more reminded of the over-the-top reactions fm our gov't in the spirit of protecting the children ;) Enough of that.

Posted by: P-Air | Apr 10, 2007 3:03:00 AM

I don't see anything in Tim's proposed code of conduct that even comes close to being heavy-handed, restrictive or authoritarian. I see his code of conduct more as a set of values put into words that bloggers can voluntarily agree to support. It's *not* a proposal for legislation--people are still free to behave as they wish. Sometimes it helps to define communal values, even if it is voluntary.

Posted by: peterskim | May 2, 2007 4:05:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.