Tim O’Reilly’s post about a blogger’s code of conduct has generated much discussion across the blogosphere and has actually been picked up by the MSM outlets such as the BBC and the New York Times.

What such a code is mostly about is who is responsible for the comments on one’s blog. While people’s different ideological philosophies regarding free speech inform how different blog owners run their site, the law is clearly not silent on the matter of speech, although, granted, there has yet to be a test case that has actually resulted in an actual judgement on the matter.

The creation of such a code is merely an attempt to pre-empt the courts from eventually completely deciding what’s what. I mean, eventually, someone is going to post a comment that will result in something actually criminal happening: murder, rape, or acts of terrorism. It’s really only a matter of time before words translate into actions, really. While the commenter may hide under the cover of (relative) anonymity, clearly the blogger would become an object of investigation. (And I say relative anonymity, because if a crime does occur, you know that law enforcement will eventually come banging at the door of the various ISPs involved, demanding server logs.)

In such a hypothetical court case, I can only imagine that the mere existence of a blogger’s code of conduct would be enough to influence the minds of the judge and jury, justly or unjustly. To the folks out there who would rather not codify such things: it’s too late, these things are codified.

Reiteration, consolidation, and discussion about the issues are all useful, but I find it somewhat annoying that people are talking about blogs as if there has never been any discussion at all about the duties and responsibilities of anyone engaging in discussion over the Internet, whether as a participant or as an administrator (see RFC 1855 which discusses Netiquette Guidelines.) This has pretty much been a topic of discussion since the beginning of those heady days that some might call the Eternal September.

And make no mistake, the fact that you have a blog with comments de facto makes you an administrator. I can’t see any other way to look at it. For one thing, your blogging platform will undoubtedly give you the power to delete comments, whether you wish to or not. This automatically makes it part of your duty to be a moderator. And while you can wholeheartedly choose to never delete comments, you’re nonetheless going to be the one responsible for making that decision. I think this is the crux of the idea that you are going to have to own not only your own words, but the words of the people commenting on your blog. Sure, you don’t own them in the sense of copyright or (perhaps) in the sense of legal liability (for example, would you be liable if someone left comments that were threatening to the president of the U.S.? No one knows for a fact. Yet.) But you can’t deny the fact that you can choose to approve or delete, and this puts a duty on you. It’s just like the role of an editor, really. You didn’t write it, but you’re responsible for allowing it to be displayed. Simple as that.

The other point of contention that is being discussed throughout the internets is who exactly is going to enforce this code? Again, these issues have already been talked about ad nauseam for the past decade and a half, and it’s clearly going to be enforced the way it’s always been: readers vote with their browser, admins vote with their mouse clicks and keypresses. There is no reason for anyone to tolerate speech that they don’t want to tolerate. If you don’t like it, just don’t look at it. On the flip side of the coin, if you own the blog, you get to decide what gets presented. It’s disingenous to pretend that blog owners don’t have a say regarding comments.

And there isn’t anything wrong about deciding to allowing everything and anything in your comments section. But recognize that you’re making the decision. You’re under no duress to leave comments open and unmoderated.

But, as I’ve said, one of these days, the courts are going to end up meddling in all of this. It’s better to discuss it now before someone gets killed or maimed, whether physically, mentally, or financially. Hyperbole? Maybe. But it would be stupid to say that the written word can’t affect the real world.