12/19/2006

Who needs Blogger's Code of Ethics?

Below is an article calling for a code of ethics for bloggers, posted in Singapore Patriots, assuming that bloggers are the culprits for some of the mess in blogosphere. However, in my blog, which I do not attack anyone in particular, nor do I use vulgarities, maybe some exceptions, there are a few pests that have obviously been sent there to disrupt my blog with their personal attacks. Now who needs a Code of Ethics? Who are behind these pests? In support of a Singaporean bloggers' Code of Ethics - Part 2 Dharmendra Yadav's TODAY article calling on bloggers to self-regulate continues to draw mixed reactions from local blogosphere. Aaron, Yuhui and I generally support the suggestion. BL agrees that blogs should self-regulate, but doubts the feasibility of implementing the idea. Other bloggers, including Dr Huang, Cowboy Caleb and Elia Diodati feel that it is unnecessary and impossible. I don't think Dharmendra and Aaron were calling for a formal blogger's association which will censor or censure its members who do not toe the line. That is not only undesirable but also impractical—bloggers simply won't join the association. There is also no intention to muzzle the "last bastion of truly free expression", as Dr Huang colourfully describes blogosphere. "Censorship" is as much a bad word to bloggers, as "welfare" is to the Singapore government. Rather than any type of association, whether formal or informal, I would prefer a Code of Ethics that the majority of law-abiding bloggers would willingly agree to. This Code should be concise, localised to the Singapore context, simple to understand, easy to adhere to, and non-binding. Its function would be symbolic rather than regulatory. It would be somewhat like the our National Pledge. The Pledge, penned by our first foreign minister S Rajaratnam, is a short and straightforward, yet deeply meaningful statement. Almost all Singaporeans from all walks of life and political persuasions agree with it. The Pledge itself has no legally binding requirements, but those who choose not to adhere to the statements set forth in the Pledge are likely to find themselves contravening some laws of our land.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

You are not only stupid, you're a congenital liar as well. Don't attack anyone, eh ? Go back and take a look at the "$3,400 psf properties" entry. Who started the name calling there ? You really have no shame lah. Do you really think your credibility will be enhanced if you mention yourself in the same breath as other more prominent bloggers. Dream on, beanhead.

redbean said...

poor upbringing.

i will tell your ma know tonight.