News 

Two recent issues have plunged net censorship back into the spotlight: web guru Tim O'Reilly's proposed code of conduct for bloggers and ICANN's decision to, once again, reject proposals for a .xxx domain for porn sites. They might sound like separate issues, but they both boil down to the same thing: a well-meaning but utterly cack-handed attempt to seal off the net's 'undesirables'.

Let's start with O'Reilly's effort to rein in rogue bloggers. Following death threats to prominent US blogger Kathy Sierra, O'Reilly suggested that bloggers should sign up to a six-point code of conduct. The code demanded we 'take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog', and that we define unacceptable content as 'anything being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others' or 'is libelous, knowingly false, ad hominem, or misrepresents another person'.

It also demanded that 'we won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person' and 'when we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action'. Those who agreed to abide by O'Reilly's rules would post a sheriff's badge emblazoned with the words 'Civility Enforced' on their sites; those who didn't would adopt a dynamite logo with 'Anything Goes' splashed across it.

The code met with fierce opposition from bloggers and commentators alike. It would prove impossible to police, provoke more rancour, not less, and curb free speech, they argued. 'No-one's going to tell me not to be disagreeable,' said Guardian columnist Jeff Jarvis. And no-one needs to tell him not to stalk, threaten or libel anyone, as that's fairly comprehensively banned by law. If the prospect of a few months inside doesn't deter you from issuing a death threat, the loss of your sheriff's badge probably isn't going to cut much ice.

Another problem with giving bloggers a code of conduct is it affords them a professional status that the vast majority neither deserve nor, I suspect, want. You expect lawyers or accountants to abide by a set of rules because they've been trained to achieve set standards; you don't

ADVERTISEMENT

hold an Arsenal fan with the hump about Saturday's result to the same standard.

However, the biggest issue I have with O'Reilly's plan is that it insults the intelligence of blog readers. Yes, there are plenty of venomous, spiteful and offensive blogs, but in my experience they don't attract a huge audience. Those who offer intelligent opinion and are considerate to their audience attract a loyal following. People don't need a warning that a blog isn't very good; they can work it out for themselves.

In his defence, O'Reilly later came to his senses and declared in a Wired interview that the whole idea may have been a 'bit misguided'. But then, this is the same O'Reilly who's widely credited with coining the Web 2.0 buzz phrase. Was the code cooked up to create a few headlines? I wouldn't put it past him.

One issue guaranteed to attract the attention of headline writers is Internet pornography, and ICANN's recent decision to reject proposals for a .xxx domain caused a mighty stir. Bizarrely, this issue sees American Christian campaigners and the pornography industry both batting for the same team. The Christians don't like the idea because they believe a .xxx domain would legitimise porn, while the industry doesn't want to give up the .com domains they've spent millions marketing over the years.

In the past, I was in favour of the .xxx domain. Moving porn to its own plot on the web would allow parents to easily block access to adult sites. But then I thought about it in the context of O'Reilly's code of conduct, and realised (belatedly) that it suffers from many of the same flaws: it's unenforceable, ineffective and likely to create more problems than it solves.

Moving porn to .xxx sounds simple in theory, but adult sites are unlikely to surrender their valuable .coms without a fight. And even if a way could be found to force the porn merchants to move, who would decide what is triple-X content and what isn't? One man's porn is another man's innocent titillation - would The Sun and Maxim be bracketed in the same category as Playboy , for example? That's not a decision I'd like to be responsible for, and ICANN has publicly stated it doesn't fancy policing content.

And therein lies the problem of censoring the Internet - whether it's bloggers adding sheriff's stars on their own sites or regulators deciding whether sites have shown enough flesh to warrant a .xxx rating, someone has to make the decisions. And frankly, I don't trust either of them to make the right ones. In the absence of anything better, I'll be sticking to the best filter I've found so far - my own eyes.