Bloggers: Manners, Please?

(CBS/AP)

If you're a regular consumer of the blogosphere, you've no doubt come across far more hateful and hurtful comments than those uttered by now-unemployed shock jock Don Imus. Moderators on various sites do filter some of the worst vitriol (Slashdot is a great example), but there are sites where everything goes.

Need an example? Take what one person wrote about presidential candidate Barack Obama on his official YouTube page: "I believe he's runnin' for president so we can invite all of africa (sic) to come and become hardcore rappers and dirty hoes (sic) on welfare." (Incidentally, here's what a YouTube spokesman said in response: "Users can flag content that they feel is inappropriate and once it is flagged it is reviewed by our staff and removed from the system within minutes if it violates our Terms of Use.") It's all enough for two Web luminaries to call for a time out.

Tim O'Reilly, publisher and Web 2.0 visionary, and Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, have proposed a code of conduct for bloggers. The idea got a lot of attention after an article appeared this week in the New York Times. Proponents say it would offer bloggers options like choosing to delete any anonymous postings, or filtering anything that's deemed to cross the line. They may even be given "badges" that certify their compliance. The hope is that bloggers will gain more respect, and the medium will clean up the cyber graffiti.

But critics charge that the foul-mouthed Web vandals will continue to post their venom. And some bloggers worry it borders on hampering free speech. I spoke with Jeff Jarvis, blogger and professor of journalism, who said the Internet is like a town, complete with the town drunk, and unfortunately the town racist.

"There are thousands of hours of radio and TV, there are 70 million blogs and most of them are wonderful. Just because there's one twit in the lot doesn't condemn the whole," he told me. The best option, he said, is to avoid reading any of the miscreant postings.

Lisa Stone, one of the leaders behind BlogHer.org, says each site should be responsible for its own content. While O'Reilly and Wales say they based their code of conduct on the BlogHer.org guidelines, Stone says her group has never talked to the men, and she doesn't agree that a blanket set of rules would work for the different blogs and sites.

"Saying that one code of conduct would work for all people is like saying one religion would work for all people or one kind of blue jeans would work for all women," said Stone. "I tell you that's not going to fly."

In many ways the Internet is a reflection of the real world, complete with all the good, the bad and the ugly. The question is should it be policed in the same way.

[booyaw_77]

This is such a disconnect its surreal. Here you got the world on the verge of war and terrorism, and the civil rights movement is blinded by death. Yes, Blinded by Death. "Thats not a civil right." They say. "Civil rights is about cussing!"

And they still have no idea why they lose their elections.

[michellem99-2009]

I feel we do have freedom to have our say. I feel I can say things in reason. It not censorship to ban some words that should not be said. There are words I was taught by adults growing up years ago. Not nice words. Don Imus rude remarks got him fired. I don't think our Founding Fathers had in mind the rude words that are used today. I think they were smart and used good english when they talked and wrote. It not censorship to be to watch what you say and use proper english.

[iceman_1960]

"Take what one person wrote about presidential candidate Barack Obama on his official YouTube page: "I believe he's runnin' for president so we can invite all of africa (sic) to come and become hardcore rappers and dirty hoes (sic) on welfare."

Was that you, didntinhale ?

[larrymagid]

I agree with Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales. This proposal is not about censorship -- everyone remains free to establish their own blogs and say whatever they want. It%u2019s about creating spaces for civil discourse where people can disagree without being mean, threatening, sexist, racist or just downright rude. I also thing that we all have a lot to learn from the Don Imus incident and the way people reacted. He's far from the only one guilty of perpetuating racist and sexist stereotypes. It's all over the web and the media, including music, TV, movies and even clothing designs.

Larry Magid
CBS News Tech Analyst

[perception5]

What has Americans really pissed off is the fact that with so many outlets for news now WE can tell which MSM outlets are corrupt.
It's pretty bad when Americans can watch our President give a speech on C-Span and then see the "evening news" totally misrepresent what he said. We see it all the time.
Our Founding Fathers wanted a robust and "independent" free press. That's not what we have today in America at all.
We have a predominately corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack press in a country that is made up of predominately religious conservatives......but that not reflected at all in the press.
Why? Do we need mandatory "affirmative action" programs in our press corps??

[one_american]

First comes the speech censorship.

Then comes the forced burning of materials that do not conform to the ideology of the oppressor.

Then comes the persecution of individuals who do not "fit in" with the plans of the oppressor.

Am I talking of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis taking control of Germany?

No, I'm talking of another oppressive Socialist dictatorship in the making --

Americas Democratic Party.