No of course not.
But this 
still looks like 
to me.
The push to have blogs adopt a ‘Code of Conduct’, including content warnings for visitors, reminds me of the P.M.R.C. and the “Warning, Explicit Content” stickers that are smacked on on just about every album worthy to buy.
I wonder what Frank Zappa would have to say?
Watch the whole Frank Zappa video. Then read Tim O’Reilly’s post and comments about the proposed ‘Code of Conduct’. Then revisit the conversation taking place about it (more links later). The overtones are there.
Question… where can I find the blogosphere equivalent of the “Filthy Fifteen” so I can subscribe to their RSS feeds?
Update: Frank Paynter has a way forward that sounds right to me – and I think it can still be effective.
Update: I’m not alone in seeing the similarities. I like that icon 🙂
Update: Additional links and commentary:
Jeff Jarvis: No twinkie badges here.; “This effort misses the point of the internet, blogs, and even of civilized behavior. They treat the blogosphere as if it were a school library where someone – they’ll do us the favor – can maintain order and control. They treat it as a medium for media. But as Doc Searls has taught me, it’s not. It’s a place.
deep jive interests: Why Are We Still Confusing “Blogging Code of Conduct” With “Having a Comments Policy”?: What we really mean to discuss is the more mundane aspect of blogging, which is to merely having a comments policy.
Shelley Powers: badges: I’ve seen as many vicious comments in men’s weblogs, as I’ve seen in women’s. I think the perceived ‘threat to all women’ supposedly inherent in weblogging has been exaggerated-not to our benefit, either.
Boing Boing: Blogger “code of conduct” trades freedom for politeness: Tim O’Reilly’s well-intentioned Blogger Code of Conduct is an attempt to come up with a voluntary set of behavioural norms that will keep blogs civil and honest. However, I was very uncomfortable with Tim’s draft, as it seemed to preclude real anonymity and invite censorship.
Dan Gillmor: In Blogosphere, Honor Should Rule: They’re creating a bit of a monster, as they discuss asking people to put logos on their work defining various categories of behavior. Who’d be the judge of it? The government? Libel lawyers? Uh, oh.
Nicholas Carr: Thanks, Tim and Jimbo!: In the future, blogs that can safely be ignored will be marked with a cute little badge..
Dave Winer: O’Reilly’s code of conduct: We all seem to be speaking with one voice today, this code of conduct idea is not a good one.
Robert Scoble: Code of conduct or not?: So, for now, I guess I’d have to wear the “anything goes” badge.
Seth Finkelstein: “Blogging Code of Conduct” – WHO ENFORCES IT?: I am simply shouting to the wind here out of frustration with the failure of blogging to provide any defense whatsoever: WHO ENFORCES THE CODE-OF-CONDUCT?
TNL.net: Blogger’s Code of Conduct: a Dissection: Because of such lapses and because I believe that “the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship,” I have to say that this code is not only a bad idea but one that should strenuously be rejected by members of the blogosphere.
A comment I left on Tim O’Reilly’s post:
“I think I’m still very concerned that saying you take responsibility for the comments on your blog means you actually take *legal* responsibility for them.
The only people who can take such responsibility are those with time on their hands – with money and resources.
Which leads to thinking that only those with money should enable comments on their blog.
Maybe I’m the only one concerned about this angle because I’m the rare exception of someone still in touch with poverty and being poor and folks that aren’t tech savy – in this discussion mainly filled with technologists and such.
I’m sorry but that and the addition of the badges make this feel like a form of self-segregation – just another way of identifying ‘us’ against whomever ‘them’ is.
Aggregators will be able to use such badging to further filter the Web, keeping other voices from its edges from being heard.
Having commenting policies makes a ton of sense. That’s obvious. But what this is evolving into….
I’m sorry, IMHO it’s reactive and needs a re-think.”
Yeah man zappa has it right!
No one has the right to inflict their moral beliefs onto anyone else. Not you and especially not the government. The government role is to ensure everyone has an equal chance of pursuring their own lives (unless of course it DIRECTLY prevents another human being from doing the same in an unlawfully way). Words do not harm people. Words do not kill people. There are no magic words. Words are words, meaningless, unless you (the reader) wants them to. Slang, language, and forms of expression has changed hugely from generation to generation and what is offensive is in the eye of the beholder. Just like art, if I do not like a painting, song, book, any form of expression, I do not support it by ignoring it not banning it. Everyone has their opinion either it be right or wrong but unless it prevents them physically from being themselves who knows the right path. The only people that can say what is right and wrong is an all knowing wise godlike person and one cannot be truely proven at this point.
It is everyone’s human right to not do something as it is for someone to do something. No one needs a government to be a close minded militant parent. It should be just something to back you up in your right of life and expression.