(Updated with great HuffPo response) I can't seem to help myself...Fuck! Shit! Fuck your Mother! Bush! sorry, that last was truly obscene In case you missed it, the NYT is calling for not just a panel, but a blogger code of ethics, and I'm sure I'm one of the "nasty" bloggers they have in mind. I'll save you the trouble of clicking thru and offer these delicious highlights in hypocrisy.

Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?

Because the web is all about uncivil political blogging, and not misogynist pr0n or violent multi-player video games depicting people getting blown up and shot to shit.

Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.

Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.

Wow, I mean- how can you not respect the mind that came up with the incredibly important term "Web 2.0?" That's deep, people. Deep.

And seeing as how I know several people who have been physically attacked as a direct result of trolling at Wiki, I find Wales' inclusion in this conversation a tad ridiculous. Clean up your own fucking site and get back to us, ok? You don't know uncivil and hurtful trolling until you've spent time in the trenches at Wiki.

Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.

Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.

“If it’s a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees,” Mr. Wales said.

Now there's an idea, no anonymous sources and all stories backed up by multiple informants? If only the New York Times would try it! I mean, that would be leadership, right? And communities policing themselves? You mean like publishing retractions and owning up to mistakes? Wow. I'm so glad these big brains are here to think of these things for us. No one in the blogosphere ever could, I'm sure.

Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”

Orwell would be proud.

I have received death threats on this blog. And you know what happened? Nothing. Those who are most violent in speech online are usually those most ensconced in their parents' basements. Is there a threat in participating in online discourse? Sure. Just like there's a threat when you talk to strangers in a bar. Of the two, which one do you think is more dangerous?

I think I'll leave it to Lambert to come up with Corrente's "Code of Blogger Ethics." But I want to make some suggestions. Here at Corrente, we'll allow complete free speech, so long as all our users agree not to torture, rape, tear up the Constitution, start illegal wars of choice, and discriminate on the basis of gender, race or (lack of) religion. I wonder if the NYT and these ethical bloggers would agree to that code?

HuffPo's Marty Kaplan shows us his idea of a code:

HE SAID/SHE SAID: Story contains pairs of contradictory quotes with no indication of which side is factual and which side is gaming the system via disinformation.

DRUDGE MATCH: Story assigned because a GOP talking point planted in Drudge convinced an editor or producer that it had to be covered.

LIES 'R' NOT US: No matter what outrageous falsehoods were uttered by a source in this story, the words "lie" or "liar" do not appear.

FRAME GAME: Story uses terms like "slow bleed strategy," "nuclear option," "death tax," "pro-life" etc. as though they were neutral descriptors rather than GOP coinages.

[SIC] JOKE: Front groups like "Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse," "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," "Americans for Sensible Estate Tax Solutions," "Alliance for Better Medicare," "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition," etc. are cited in this story without the use of [sic] after their names.

FAKE THINK TANK: Story quotes the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Progress and Freedom Foundation and other corporate-sponsored GOP meme factories as if they were legitimate scholarly research centers.

FALSE EQUIVALENCE: Story "balances" an inflammatory Heritage Foundation press release with a dull Brookings Institution report, as though a centrist scholarly analysis were the lefty equivalent of a radical right-wing screed. On a talk show, Orrin Hatch is "balanced" by Joe Lieberman.

ACCESS ALL AREAS: Story grants anonymity to an official source whose purpose is to defame a political opponent or selectively leak misleading classified information.

SOME SAY: Attempts by operatives and apparachiks to plant defamatory stories are laundered as routine reporting on inside buzz, Beltway rumors and Georgetown dinner party anecdotes.

THAT'S OLD NEWS: Previous inadequate reporting is used as a justification not to revisit an important story when significant new information surfaces.

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT: A high-stakes moral battle in the public sphere is covered as if it were a theatrical performance with no consequences for ordinary people and no stakes for American democracy.

EYE CANDY ALERT: Because news is now a profit center in corporate conglomerates, this story about Anna Nicole Smith [Sanjaya, the Runaway Bride, etc.] is taking up valuable news-hole real estate that might otherwise be devoted to covering the occupation of the United States by an army of religious zealots and incompetent ideologues determined to destroy confidence in government, eradicate civil liberties, squelch dissent, transfer wealth from the middle to the top, establish an oil empire in the Middle East, and amuse the American population to death.

The SCLM is so fucking stupid, they don't even know when they set themselves up to be the butts of the easiest jokes in the world.