It took me a while but I put my money where my mouth is…..

O’Reilly isn’t asking to police communities – he’s suggesting that people police their own. “All of a sudden”? See my last.

I just don’t think I’m as suspicious of others motives as you are. Ultimately I can make up my own mind, and am confident enough in my own choices to not really care what others think of them. And I expect others to be able to do the same. I personally don’t think it makes sense to look at O’Reilly’s work on this in any other context.

think about it in relation to who you might read regularly….

Further, questioning his motives is a very good thing. When someone of his stature within the blogosphere all of a sudden decides to start wanting to police communities beyond his own boundaries, believe me, there will be plenty who are listening….

And they may be listening in part because they do not want to be responsible for creating their own rules. It’s far easier to let someone else do it–to rely on some rule of law–rather than remember that we create and maintain our own spaces out here. (for the record, I consider both of my blogs my own little barrooms in the blogosphere–and reserve the right to throw out whomever crosses the line.)

As to why he’s doing it now, I don’t think it’s particularly fair, or even reasonable, to suggest that because he hasn’t been on the front lines of this issue since birth (exaggeration to make a point, obviously) he can’t be taken seriously about it now. People change; their opinions change; they learn to see things differently. Really, who cares – if one wanted to get something like this done he would be a good ally to have, and I don’t see any reason to question his motives.

Gun control won’t stop gun killings. Laws against murder won’t stop murder. Parking tickets won’t stop parking violations. It’s not news to say that this won’t stop death threats or harassing email. It’s plausible that it might force the whackjobs further into their own dark corners, though. That wouldn’t be a bad thing. And the culture of the Web is at a very early stage. Getting visible public support behind the idea that whackjobs aren’t welcome to attack others on the Web is in itself not a bad thing, IMO.

And as to your last point re us/ them, I don’t really know what you mean. If the us is the good guys and the them is the whackjobs, us / them is not a bad thing, IMO. If it’s between those who have a code of conduct and those who don’t, that’s not a biggie either, IMO. Not everyone has to donate to or support Greenpeace or the Republicans or the Red Cross in order for them to get something going. And I’ve never personally understood the attitude that one shouldn’t try just because something might be difficult or ultimately not completely successful.

But why is O’Reilly doing this now? It’s been an issue for awhile, with many women being run out of the blogosphere by bullies. Is he doing this now only because it has touched someone he cares about?

Does that then mean that the rest of the women in the blogosphere are nothing?

Codes like this also won’t stop death-threats nor harassing email.

Ultimately, the code, if adopted and carried out, may create another level of us/them out here. I don’t see it helping anything.

The law deals with specific speech issues like hate, threats and libel. There is no reason why anyone should feel obliged to permit anything that is not merely illegal to be said in their own community, any more than they should feel obliged to allow it to be said in their own home.

When you blog it, feel free to come back and post a link to your post.

But I do agree with you that the issue is dealt with just fine by folks having their own rules about what’s allowed and what’s not, and sticking with it. That’s Tony’s point, and it’s a fine one. We’re all responsible for what we do.