A recent post on Blogcritics.com outlines a basic ethical ruleset for bloggers to adhere to. Its stated purpose is to "promote civility and intellectual honesty in the blogosphere." The author feels that "both civility and intellectual honesty are two necessities in the blogosphere if it is to remain a credible source of information."
In the legal realm, civility is often a sorely lacking trait. Anyone who has practiced in the area of family law can surely attest to this. However, while the seven guidelines proposed in the article are purportedly noble in their cause, they may not have practical meaning for blogging lawyers. For that matter, they may not have practical meaning for anyone who reads or writes weblogs.
Touted as a media revolution, blogging has some rather high standards to meet. The community at large values "trusted source" information, and cringes anytime its grassroots nature appears violated. "Commercial blogs" are often reviled as no better than kiddie-porn.
However, there is a risk that imposing too rigorous a ruleset on blogging will ultimately kill it. Credibility and forthrightness are estimable attributes. Yet, if the level of expectation remains unattainably high, writers and readers may abandon their journals because they cannot live up to their own (self-imposed) expectations.
The important thing to remember is that blogging will become just like every other form of media. That is to say, it will be just as co-opted and rife with disingenuous sources as books, newspapers, television, radio, and the internet in general.
Blog readers and writers should not complain about having to be challenged within their own arena. Already we must wade through myriad "traditional" sources of information to find the most reliable facts, cogent arguments, and admirable ideas. The same will need to be done for weblogs. In fact, we already do it, it's just going to keep getting harder.
Indeed, if these seven rules were applied to talk radio, liberal or conservative, the airwaves would be empty. Talk radio is more or less a flame war with intermittent traffic reports.
Here are the seven rules, with various polemical retorts:
(1) Misinformation and/or false information shall not be published or permitted in the blogosphere.
We all know and love perjury laws, so false information is definitely off-limits. However, misinformation is the sophist's ball peen hammer. If facts won't win your client's case, perhaps smoke and mirrors will do. If the White House can use misinformation, so can anyone who writes a weblog.
(2) Posts or comments should remain civil, however, if someone does flame you in any way, shape or form, they should expect to be flamed in return in the form of a post or comment and they should not complain that they are treated in the same way that they have treated you. Libeling anyone should be refrained from entirely.
We actually have rules already for the lattermost portion: they're called libel laws. Also, as far as flamers not complaining about being flamed, it's a flame war: all is fair. The better version of this rule would be "Do Not Flame." Telling someone that they should expect to be flamed in return means it is open season for authors to stoop to that level once they have been flamed. For me, the practice of law has always meant taking the higher ground. Those in practice know that it is not always easy, especially considering the obligations to your client.
(3) Information in a post shall not be stolen from a source or plagiarized. If information from a source other than your own is used, that source shall be cited.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the internet here. In fact, Creative Commons should add a new element to their license that is slightly lower than "attribution required" called "no passing off". While attribution is certainly the proper thing to do, the internet has a good deal of noble buccaneering. The rapid dissemination of information may at times necessitate simply propagating data without trackbacks or hrefs. Just don't say you came up with it.
(4) You have the complete and total freedom to express your views and opinions in any way, shape or form you choose, as long as no one is flamed directly or libled [sic] in the process. You should not expect everyone to agree with your views and you should expect discussion and debate of your views openly when they are posted.
Basically, you can say anything you want. But you may never call someone a "booger-eating moron." I am afraid that you can't give me "complete and total freedom to express your views and opinions in any way, shape or form you choose" without letting me call someone names.
(5) Posts that purposefully state something that cannot be proven about another blogger in order to increase traffic to your blog shall not be permitted.
So, if I posted that there is no number "n" other than 2 for which
(Joi Ito)n + (Lawrence Lessig)n = (Glenn Reynolds)n
and then told you to buy my book, I would be in violation. And not just because the formula above is obscene even with the number 2 as "n". Technically, I suppose Fermat's Last Thereom is something unproven to be unprovable.
(6) Bloggers shall do their best to adhere to good use of the English language, as to ensure a readable post by their readers.
teh rule above clearly does not apply to l33t h^x0r5.
(7) Violation of any of these guideliness [sic] shall constitute the violating blogger's permittance [sic] of his/her fellow bloggers posting juicy posts detailing his/her violation(s) in full.
Permittance? Not only is it not a word, but as if he/she is anything other than powerless to stop them. Plus, whenever someone uses the word juicy, it usually means that they are salivating as they write it. In other words, if you are bad, the flamers and bloggy gossip mongers will eat you. Finally, perhaps the author of these rules should consult his own Rule #6. I had to use sic three times.
Pardon my candle lighting.