Regarding Freedom of Expression
| This is a variant of the Blogger’s Code of Conduct |
The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker values free expression and a vigorous exchange of opinions. Spunky debate is not only allowed, it’s encouraged so long as one remains on topic. Personal abuse, plagiarism, libel and SPAM are unwelcome and will be removed, along with anything else that constitutes a blatant violation of common decency in civil discourse.
(For those Freedom of Speech! First Amendment! I can say anything I want on the internet! How dare you! WAHHHHHH! dudes, dig this: The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects our speech from Government interference. It does not protect us from the legal and practical consequences of being an ASS. If I’ve directed you to this page, please understand that you are on notice.)
I take responsibility for my own words and reserve the right to restrict comments on my web log that do not conform to my ethical standards. I am committed to the “Civility Enforced” standard: I strive to post high quality, acceptable content, and I will delete comments that I find unacceptable.
I define unacceptable comments as anything included (but not limited to) or linked to that:
- are being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
- are libelous or knowingly false
- infringe upon any copyright, trademark or trade secret of any third party. (If you quote or excerpt someone’s content, it is your responsibility to provide proper attribution to the original author. For a clear definition of proper attribution and fair use, please see The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Legal Guide for Bloggers.)
- violate an obligation of confidentiality
- violate the privacy of others
- make absolutely no sense
- are irrelevant, off-topic, disruptive, or otherwise lend nothing to the discussion at hand
I define and determine what is “unacceptable content” on a case-by-case basis, and my definitions are not limited to this list. I do not need to justify my decisions to delete content on my my online diary. This is my personal space, my salon, my online Home.
I will not say anything online that I wouldn’t say in person.
Unless I am trying to protect a confidential source, in which case I may (more like will) omit certain private details or otherwise obfuscate the source of my information.
Your right to swing your fist ends where someone else’s nose begins. We all should be as responsible and civil as we are in the real world.
I have ZERO TOLERANCE for libel, personal attacks and threats. When I believe someone is unfairly attacking another I WILL take action.
When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are threatening or libelous, I will tell them so (privately, if possible) and ask them to publicly make amends, unless it is considered that doing so will only inflame or worsen the situation. If those published comments could be construed as a threat or of an illegal nature, and the perpetrator doesn’t withdraw them and apologize, I will cooperate with local law enforcement regarding those comments and/or postings.
Ignore the trolls!
Please do not deprive me of my chance to take out the trolls; it ruins my fun. Feeding the trolls only encourages them. Remember, “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” (George Bernard Shaw) Ignoring public attacks is often the best way to contain them.
Bottom Line:
My Blog, My Discretion!
10 responses so far ↓
The HPS Blogging Code of Conduct « Hedonistic Pleasureseeker // April 29, 2007 at 1:03 pm
[...] finally put together my Code of Conduct. It is on my sidebar, so check it out! My content is protected by copyright, but in this particular case all may feel free to plagarize. [...]
VJ // April 30, 2007 at 2:05 am
Sounds simple enough. Ethics need never enter into it though. Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
hedonisticpleasureseeker // April 30, 2007 at 2:49 am
Hi VJ! By ethics I mean knowing it’s not necessarily illegal to “out” someone as revenge for writing something you don’t like; all the same, it’s unethical.
VJ // April 30, 2007 at 8:13 am
Ah, most of the serious cases I’ve seen on that score have come from paid ‘bona fide’ journo types. They think nothing of doing that, the NYT, Wash Post, WSJ etc. all have all done this. Mostly out of pique of one sort or another by one of their thin skinned but very highly paid writers. Just because they can, and their legal depts are larger and better paid than almost any blogger or group of bloggers.
So there really needs to be a journalistic code of conduct For bloggers too, but I’m betting we’ll not live to see that come to pass either. The NYT would rather have to apologize for Inventing Whitewater (the Clinton era scandal that tripped off the media frenzy of foaming mad hatreds & decade long investigations of & for the Clinton’s), than do something sensible like that. {See Gene Lyons on ‘How the Media Invented Whitewater’ & ‘The Hunting of the President’
I think this will cost the major media types big time in the end for their shattered credibility. But they’ll not leave the sinking ship until it’s well under water. Then they’ll probably want a government bail out for everyone they know.
So it’s really tough being a media multimillionaire (most every ‘reporter’ you ever see on TV is one of these), and yet still having all these pesky blog people saying mean, nasty (but still utterly truthful) things about you and the evil corrupt corporations you work for. ‘Good’ Ethics for them is going back to the way things were before the net & bloggers. When they had a monopoly on ‘the truth’ and no one dared to talk back to them. Even the ‘Letters’ sections in every paper is heavily censored. I gave up my subscription to the Atlanta Journal Constitution after 25 years, after they refused to print anymore of my letters for years. They would regularly change & alter my letters & I dared to complain about that & the other multiple idiocies of their ‘non’ coverage of the news of the day.
Me, I think of a newspaper as belonging in part to the community they’re sworn to ‘cover’ Unfortunately this is a deeply old fashioned concept, now decades out of date. They now think the only duty they have is to keep on making the same incredibly obscene ~20% profits year after year for not reporting on any real news, but forever trying to sell us on a particular upscale lifestyles. This is why better than 60% of any newspaper in America is now ads, most far more than that too.
You run a personal blog. It’s yours & yours alone. You are beholden to no one, and you’ve truly got no ’stakeholders’ here. No one is buying anything from you, and you’re really not ’selling’ anything. The 1st Amendment does not apply, as you have noted. Why anyone thinks they can do a drive by on your online home and expect you to keep up their mindless drivel or graffito up here is beyond me. People should recognize that even on their *own* blogs, their content is subject to approval from every hosting community & business. If they violate important standards or the law, or even offend someone more powerful & important than they are, it’s liable to be taken down by the ISP, for fear of legal action. It’s as simple as that. I could go on, but this is already too long! Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 1, 2007 at 3:09 am
VJ, thanks for that, and I wholeheartedly agree!
Meanwhile, after dealing with three obnoxious, rude and hostile commenters today I’ve added the following to my list of types of comments I’ll delete at my discretion:
Comments that:
# make absolutely no sense
# are irrelevant, off-topic, disruptive, or otherwise lend nothing to the discussion at hand
That should do it!
datesbubbas // May 1, 2007 at 4:15 am
It’s ridiculous that anyone should even have to post something like this to explain why they deleted what amounts to spam.
troll // May 1, 2007 at 4:18 am
(paranoid schizophrenic nutjob says something trollish)
Reminder:
I define unacceptable comments as anything included (but not limited to) or linked to that:
* are being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
* are libelous or knowingly false
* infringe upon any copyright, trademark or trade secret of any third party. (If you quote or excerpt someone’s content, it is your responsibility to provide proper attribution to the original author. For a clear definition of proper attribution and fair use, please see The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Legal Guide for Bloggers.)
* violate an obligation of confidentiality
* violate the privacy of others
* make absolutely no sense
* are irrelevant, off-topic, disruptive, or otherwise lend nothing to the discussion at hand
Troll // May 1, 2007 at 4:27 am
(Troll says something trollish, BLAH BLAH BLAH it’s my schizophrenic nutjob, nevermind.)
I define unacceptable comments as anything included (but not limited to) or linked to that:
* are being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
* are libelous or knowingly false
* infringe upon any copyright, trademark or trade secret of any third party. (If you quote or excerpt someone’s content, it is your responsibility to provide proper attribution to the original author. For a clear definition of proper attribution and fair use, please see The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Legal Guide for Bloggers.)
* violate an obligation of confidentiality
* violate the privacy of others
* make absolutely no sense
* are irrelevant, off-topic, disruptive, or otherwise lend nothing to the discussion at hand
VJ // May 1, 2007 at 10:51 am
Offering a concurring opinion with your thoughts there HP. It’s a pretty damn obvious point too. Cheers, ‘VJ’
runningoutandabout // April 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I wonder when in the hell people are actually going to get a fucking clue and understand the First Amendment. Well at least maybe those people that read this will.
Leave a Comment