Over recent months, the issue of regulating blogs is one that has reared its head on a number of occasions, and following some well-documented cases of cyber-bullying, there have been calls from some quarters for a Code of Conduct for bloggers.
Tessa Jowell
went online at the Guardian’s ‘Comment is free’ site to discuss blogging, specifically whether a blogging Code of Conduct should be introduced in order to “increase the quality of internet debates.”
In her post, Ms Jowell tells us that she prefers to call the internet “ourspace” – defining this as those “places and spaces where people meet as equals; where public engagement and debate takes place.” Whilst applauding the rise of citizen journalism, Ms Jowell seeks to remind us that as power shifts increasingly into the hands of citizens, responsibility must follow.
But must it? The Press Complaints Commission was called by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to provide information regarding what, if any, regulation should apply to information online.
In its
submission to the Committee, the Commission points out that it is not for governments in a democracy to draw up and enforce rules about how people may communicate with one other through the press.
So far, so good, but the Commission then proceeds to submit that the challenge is actually to help the consumer distinguish between the different sources of information so that they are aware of their relative reliability, a sort of kite-mark for the virtual world, because “a lot of poor quality information is circulated, with the presentation of rumours, conspiracy theories or propaganda as fact, and many sites devoted to gossip and innuendo.”
So what? Personally, I am somewhat amazed by this line of thinking, the idea that users of the internet require assistance as to the degree of credence to give to what they read in cyberspace. I grant you, kite marks are helpful when it comes to choosing a cycle helmet, or a baby’s cot, but you cannot effectively kite mark blogsites. You cannot ‘kite mark’ speech.
Neither do I buy into Ms Jowell’s concerns about civility in cyberspace. Ms Jowell stresses the need for maintaining civilised parameters for debate, so that more people feel comfortable in participating. I don’t agree. I think that Ms Jowell and others would do well to remember that nobody is forced to log on to blogs where they find the content or language offensive. There are plenty of blogs where they won’t encounter uncivilised debate. The virtual world is big enough for us all, and where bullying becomes a problem, there are adequate enough measures in the real world to deal with it.
