Free Speech
The New York Times has an article about those who are proposing a code of conduct for conversations on the web. The purpose of this code is to help bring a measure of civility to the web, where ad hominim attacks and anonymous flames are commonplace. The idea is that individual web sites would voluntarily subscribe to the code.
Whether or not this is a good idea is a topic that I may take up in a later post. Most of the things they are proposing are just common sense ideas that anyone with manners and an ability to reason critically should already be following. Of course, both those things are in short supply these days. But the topic on which I want to focus in this post is the objection that people raise: any rules amount to censorship and an infringement on free speech.
Free speech, of course, is something that is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and so people think anything that prevents free speech is therefore somehow wrong. But the problem is that the Constitution tells us what the government can and cannot do. “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” This has no bearing on individuals, businesses, or any other non-governmental entity. The First Amendment does not require me to allow anything and everything to be said on my blog. If it did, blocking spam would be illegal (sorry, Akismet). But as an individual, I am free to censor anything I feel is inappropriate, and that is perfectly within my right. I rarely do it, but if someone engages in profanity, personal attacks, or flat out lies on my blog, it will be deleted without any qualms on my part.
One of the problems with the idea of free speech is that it often misunderstood. People often think that we should have free speech because everyone’s opinion is valuable. This, of course, is Grade A buffalo bagels (to quote Col. Potter). Those who read much at all quickly find that there is a great deal of difference in the quality of opinions out there, especially on the Internet.
Instead, the idea behind free speech is that it should not be the government who decided which opinions are good and which are bad. We also don’t want to silence good opinions a priori. When free speech is abridged, it means that some good ideas may not be heard, and that means that society as a whole will be worse of for it. But when we allow for the cacophony that free speech, we also have to decide critically which are the silver and which are the dross.
The problem is that the idea of free speech is commonly understood to mean that we cannot adjudicate between different ideas. This is the only way that subscribing to a code of conduct could be seen as an attach on free speech. But if individuals decide that their own personal blogs are going to follow a code of conduct, that is well within their rights. Those of us who pay money to buy server space and run a blog are under no compulsion to provide a platform for people attack others and spew illogical arguments.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 7:38 am
Legislating rules is different than creating a code of conduct. If Emily Post were federal, state, or local law, we’d all be in trouble. I see absolutely nothing wrong with a code of conduct, although I question how effective it would be.
On May 3rd, 2007 at 8:03 am
I think it would be effective to the extent that the owners of web sites enforced it. I don’t allow personal attacks on this site. But so far the idea that I would delete them is only theoretical, since no one has ever engaged in such behavior here. I tend to think my readers and those of other biblioblogs are a better class of people.
On the other hand, I came across a great quote while reading The Invisible Man last night. (This is the book by H.G. Wells, not the one with the same title by Ralph Ellison.) The Invisible Man is said to “swear with that breadth and variety that distinguishes the swearing of a cultivated man.”
By the way, if we are going to legislate manners, Judith Martin is certainly the better choice.