While I don't think it smacks of censorship because there's no government action, I don't like the communitarian trend of promoting the idea that bloggers are responsible for what commenters say:

The preliminary recommendations posted by Mr. Wales and Mr. O'Reilly are based in part on a code developed by BlogHer, a network for women designed to give them blogging tools and to guide readers to their pages.

"Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later," said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

No way am I responsible for anyone's comment but my own. As I have pointed out repeatedly, while no one has any right to say anything here, that does not obligate me to read, respond, or delete. I'm regularly insulted (this recent example is a classic), and I've gotten some horrendously offensive comments too; my general approach in dealing with speech I don't like is to leave it there as a legacy -- like these comments. In logic, the existence of a comment means simply that someone said that.

Unless I feel like it, I will never turn off anonymous comments, and any attempt to make me turn them off will only make me dig in my heels. I say this not to be a contrarian, but to uphold what I consider a basic principle of blogging, which is that there be no restrictions on free speech. Not even on bad speech. Or "offensive" speech.

I admit it's a bit paradoxical, but I think insulting, ad hominem remarks, and even hateful or bigoted remarks constitute evidence of the following:

some people think that way; and

they are afraid to say what they think in an open manner.

So (as the saying goes) anonymous bad speech sometimes calls for more speech, and other times it just sits there as a shining example of stupidity, ignorance, bad logic, or dishonesty.

What is wrong with that? An argument can be made that even the most outrageous and insulting or hateful speech should be freely allowed. But how dare anyone tell me that I must not allow it or that I am responsible for what I did not say?

The anonymous comment feature provides an invaluable way to catch a glimpse of something in the human spirit which for me is vital to understanding how people think, and why they think what they do. Anonymous commenters often say things that they would not dare say publicly, and they provide a helpful barometer of what it is that people who normally feel censored dare not say. Even when an anonymous commenter annoys the hell out of me (as many have), there's always a reason why that person is afraid to say who he is, and that reason is often more important than the comment itself.

This blog is about the Culture War, damn it! If free speech isn't allowed here, then where will it be allowed?

I think it's worth asking why it is that this regulatory call (couched in the language of "civility") came only after Ann Althouse (herself the subject of huge amounts of abusive excoriation) was accused of mounting a "harassment" campaign.

Was it simply because a respected blogger in the public limelight was recently threatened? While there's no question that the death threats against Kathy Sierra are despicable (astoundingly horrid, even), why wasn't this speech code advocated after the threats made to Jeff Goldstein's two year old son?

I couldn't agree more with Ann Althouse on the manner in which the Kathy Sierra story is being manipulated:

I hope people wake up and notice how the Kathy Sierra story is being leveraged (something I talked about here). A woman received real threats of violence. Those threats are criminal, and Sierra's case is being handled by the police, as well it should be. Nasty, cruel, ugly, unfair, mocking, abusive speech is a completely different matter. Anyone who blends the two subjects is selling out free speech and should be called on it right away. This repressive movement is gaining momentum. Be alarmed now, before it digs in any further.

Anonymous commenter? Well, yes.

But aren't they forgetting that anyone -- anyone --can leave an anonymous comment? Anyone means even (and especially) a professional operative. It's the easiest thing in the world to go into some Internet cafe, pay cash, and deliberately leave a contrived bombshell which poses as an ordinary comment. It could happen any time to this blog, and it would not be my fault at all. I might not even notice it until someone brought it to my attention. Obviously, I would cooperate with the authorities if there was a death threat or a criminal solicitation or something like that, but how is that an argument for turning off comments? And what does it mean to argue that I am "responsible"?

Back to the Times:

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.

Second, what in the world does it mean to say that I should "be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship"? I am able to delete any comment I want, or turn them all off. If someone accused me of "censorship," I would not take that as a serious criticism, for I am not the government, and it is not legally censorship. Sure, they might not like it, just as the Pandagon people did not like it when La Shawn Barber blocked comments from them. Is the new "code" suggesting that there should be no right to criticize a blogger by accusing him of censorship?

Why?

The more I look at this proposal, the more I'm inclined to think that the goal is to protect certain sensitive people from having to see things that make them uncomfortable. While it's hard to take any of this seriously, I'm wondering whether the blogosphere speech code proposal might be driven at least in part by a mentality that's already been conditioned to accept restrictions on speech. I suspect that many of the supporters attended colleges and universities governed by the type of "speech codes" I discussed in a post last year:

While I'm too old to have experienced things like "hate speech codes" in the university setting, a younger person told me that it's been a big deal in many universities for years. There are things like "review boards" dedicated to hearing "charges" involving allegedly "hateful" remarks, and allegedly "offensive" remarks made between students. Students know that "offensiveness" is taken very seriously, and they are intimidated.

I think that's fear, by any definition.

The images of Muhammad, I was told, would be deemed "offensive" by virtually any university with rules against hateful or offensive speech.

Now, I realize that this does not constitute censorship in the legal sense, because the government is not involved. But it was the contention of this former student that an entire generation of today's intellectuals had their psyches shaped by such intimidation. They were, simply, trained to kowtow to it the way a soldier is conditioned to salute an officer. Almost by instinct.

Sigh.

I guess if you're indoctrinated and trained to do something, doing it (or accepting it) tends to become second nature.

Of course, I grew up in the 60s and 70s. While there were a lot of people on the left, they still believed in free speech -- even free speech taken to extremes. I saw lots of people shouted down by people who disagreed with them, and no one in those days would have thought of having speech codes. Later, though, many of the leftists who had once shouted down their opponents grew up and took charge of the universities, only to impose speech codes which would have been unthinkable had they been imposed on them at the same age. But I guess imposing an official speech code is easier than shouting people down. (Especially if the former can be imposed on the pretext of "civility.")

In the context of manners, civility is fine.

In the context of free speech, I think it's a false flag.

The moral duty to be polite has nothing to do with the right to be rude. I'll try to uphold the right to be rude in as polite a manner as I can.

But I don't have to be polite. Besides, aren't there a lot of people who think it's rude to disagree? And what about those who see disagreement as discrimination?

MORE: Pajamas Media reminded me of something:

Sensible Instapundit opines that what's being sought here is "more like a commenter code of conduct."

To those who say my rules are unduly restrictive, remember: if we could save just one vitreolic commenter....

Gerard van der Leun has a great post titled "No Stinking Badges."I really have to think that O'Reilly is into the whole "civility button" business purely to improve his own scent. All bloggers already have two buttons, the edit button and the delete button. That's all we need to crush dissent within our tiny little realms. Anything else just glorifies Emperor O'Reilly and he's already lording it over wage slaves daily. I don't see why I should join up. Unless he's going to pay me.

UPDATE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Frank J. is yawning about comments:

There's a New York Times article on making a blogger code of conduct. Most of it seems to be aimed towards regulating comments (I didn't actually read the article; that's why I peruse blogs: they summarize what I don't have the attention span to read myself). Apparently, blog comments have gotten so vicious now that some non-conservative chick has been the target of their venom that it's time to regulate things.

I think I speak for everyone at IMAO when I say, "Yawn."

My rules may be different from Frank's but it's hard to disagree with his yawn.

MORE: I see that this O'Reilly guy actually created badges to label blogs:

While I'd like to hope he's kidding, the ability of some people to take themselves seriously never ceases to amaze me.

I'm tempted to ask just who does this Tim O'Reilly thinks he is, but that might be seen as argumentative, even as incivility. Likewise, if I compared his attitude to that of James Dobson, I might annoy the fans of both.

So I'll just remain polite!

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds' link to Cory Doctorow, O'Reilly's nutty ideas are dissected in full here.

Sorry, but much as I'd like to laugh this off, it's not easy. Besides, people who take themselves too seriously don't like being laughed at.

Especially when they're promoting "speech codes."

THE LAST WORD: After much soul-searching, I have decided that the time has come for me to take myself as seriously as Tim O'Reilly is taking himself.

I therefore hereby officially reannounce, republish, reinstate, and repromulgate The Classical Values Eleven Rules of Etiquette for Commenters (which are listed below in the order that they are repromulgated).

It pains me to have to do this, but what pains me more is that duty requires me to proclaim that from now on, all other blogs must follow my rules.

And I mean starting now.

You have all been told. Now do as I say!

MORE: Dave Winer (hardly a stranger to the topic) thinks Tim O'Reilly is "the biggest bully on the block" and finds irony in his call for a speech code:

I was bullied a bit when I was a kid, but then I shot up and the bullies mostly left me alone and picked on smaller kids. I couldn't help but identify with them, and I felt bad that I didn't put myself between the bully and the kids they tormented. And I have definitely been pushed around in the blogosphere, and as I mentioned earlier, the biggest bully on my blog block is Tim O. So I find it pretty ironic that he's the one calling for civility.

All I want to know is why the man has taken it upon himself to try to tell me what to do.

Imagine the outcry if a moralist like Pat Robertson (or a candidate like, say, Hillary Clinton) had called for a blogosphere speech code....