Leave the idiots to it...

The proposed code of conduct for blogs has highlighted a common confusion between censorship and editorial judgement. While the idea of 'content warnings' for uncensored blogs is patronising, the implication that decisions about publication can or should be made according to a code of conduct is downright objectionable. The web as a whole is quite rightly unregulated, but there's no reason people shouldn't make their own decisions over what they allow on their own sites. Dissenters are free to post comments elsewhere, or to set up their own sites. What is difficult is settling on what is a reasonable degree of regulation to facilitate open debate, rather than a straightforward editorial line.

At a public meeting, a good chairperson will shut people up if they speak too long or talk nonsense, and will also set the tone of debate, usually discouraging abuse or swearing. Nobody sensible thinks of this as 'censorship'. Indeed, in a narrow legal sense, the organisers of a meeting (or whoever is paying for the room) have absolute discretion over who speaks and what they are allowed to say. If the organisers want the event to be taken seriously as a debate, however, they are obliged to allow dissent, subject to commonly agreed terms of civility. Most of the time, this happens fairly spontaneously and without controversy. While the same principle applies to online discussion, various factors make the issue more vexed: the psychological distance afforded by the medium, and the possibility of anonymity, both contribute to a weakening of civility. Perhaps more importantly, the diversity of possible contributors to a discussion, and their often conflicting agendas, mean there is often little or no agreement about what is and is not reasonable.

Rather than despairing at the deterioration of some online discussions into childish abuse and worse, however, we should take heart from the fact that so many online discussions work so well. This happens when people do share at least a basic idea of what the discussion is for, and the terms of engagement. Often this develops spontaneously, but sometimes a little moderation is required: as long as everyone involved acts in good faith, it really doesn't matter. We all make judgements when looking at online forums about how seriously to take them, and whether it is worth taking part. The smart thing to do is to steer clear of flame wars, and leave the idiots to it. And those of us who believe in free speech should lose no sleep over advising childish and abusive contributors to our websites to go exercise their freedom elsewhere.

Dolan Cummings