Tim O'Reilly: Advocating Censorship (For Your Own Good)

As mentioned below, there is some talk circulating around the interwebs regarding a blogger code of conduct co-authored by Jimmy Wales and Tim O'Reilly.

I got started on this little tirade after reading a quote from Mr. O'Reilly in the New York Times:

Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”

This sounds like some crazy Orwellian shit to me. 'Censorship enhances free speech' requires the kind of logical jump necessary to believe that ignorance is strength. I asked him, via his blog, to make further comment on it. If I get a further comment, I'll post it here.

Some on Tim's blog have suggested that the code of conduct should be adopted because "Do you know how many people are afraid to post or comment fearing the vitriol. [sic] Their voices are not heard."

Anyone who doesn't speak because they're afraid they'll be contradicted - or worse, insulted - has no place in a conversation.

Only individual blog owners have any business regulating civility.

I've already made it my policy to delete (or edit) comments that I find annoying or spammy. (LIAM!)

Those who agree with this code of conduct don't need it, and those who need it won't adopt it. It's a pointless conversation, a pointless exercise. A conversation starter, and a weak one at that for precisely the same reasons that the code of conduct is worthless.

The only possible application for the above code of conduct is so that a blog owner challenged on their decision to censor their readers can cite a source instead of (gasp) using their own words to convey the strength of their convictions.

And, I say again, people who won't speak because they're scared of someone disagreeing with them, even abusively and inappropriately, doesn't really have a place in a serious conversation.

We should thank our lucky stars we only have to worry about idiots photoshopping our heads into gross or disturbing pictures, unlike so many in the world who actually have something real to be concerned about should they exercise their right to free speech.

And, as Dylan often says, Americans tend to be awful, really just terrible, at risk assessment.

There is a serious dereliction of sense involved in the fear of internet death threats. Does anyone have statistics for the number of people murdered last year over something they wrote on the internet?

How about car accidents?

If we're going to start really acting on our fears, let's do it with some sense.

Kathy Sierra, you can start going to speaking engagements again, but I reckon you'd better walk to them.