Sunday, April 29, 2007
Almost done...
Well, my project is coming to a close and I'm working on the final report. I'll appreciate anyone that wants to add some feedback before I hand the final product in two weeks from now. Wish me luck!
Monday, April 23, 2007
"A 17-Year Nightmare of Identity Theft Finally Results in Criminal Charges" (4/13/07 p. A10)
Identity theft is scary. Last year, I lost my Social Security card and spent three months worrying and watching my bank account very closely. Thankfully, someone was able to return it to me and nothing ever came of it. I can't imagine spending 17 years of my life struggling with the problem that something actually did come of it.
David B. Dahlstrom, a locksmith in Salt Lake City has unwillingly shared his identity with Yorck A. Rogge, a German immigrant in Los Angeles.
Rogge used Mr. Dahlstrom's name since 1990 and has committed a series of crimes under it. Rogge is now facing 81 counts of identity theft and fraud.
Some major ethics come in to play right away. It seriously took 17 years to catch Rogge? Mr. Dahlstrom has difficulty getting credit and at one point was detained by police officers serving an arrest warrant in his name. In 1985, Mr. Dahlstrom lost his wallet in Utah. The wallet contained his birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license. His identity wasn't officially stolen until five years later when Mr. Rogge was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence. The time line gets even better. Mr. Dahlstrom didn't even officially know his identity had been stolen until 1997 when he was contacted be creditors for "fraudulent activity." In 1998, he received an insurance claim for an accident he was not involved in and another claim a few years after. A few red flags finally threw him on the right track.
The police in Utah told Mr. Dahlstrom that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He called Los Angeles city attorney's office pleading for help. Well, its about time.
At the end of the long haul, Mr. Rogge faces up to 31 years in prison and is an illegal immigrant. I can't image why it took so long for this identity crime to be brought to a screeching halt.
Article by: RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
David B. Dahlstrom, a locksmith in Salt Lake City has unwillingly shared his identity with Yorck A. Rogge, a German immigrant in Los Angeles.
Rogge used Mr. Dahlstrom's name since 1990 and has committed a series of crimes under it. Rogge is now facing 81 counts of identity theft and fraud.
Some major ethics come in to play right away. It seriously took 17 years to catch Rogge? Mr. Dahlstrom has difficulty getting credit and at one point was detained by police officers serving an arrest warrant in his name. In 1985, Mr. Dahlstrom lost his wallet in Utah. The wallet contained his birth certificate, Social Security card and driver's license. His identity wasn't officially stolen until five years later when Mr. Rogge was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence. The time line gets even better. Mr. Dahlstrom didn't even officially know his identity had been stolen until 1997 when he was contacted be creditors for "fraudulent activity." In 1998, he received an insurance claim for an accident he was not involved in and another claim a few years after. A few red flags finally threw him on the right track.
The police in Utah told Mr. Dahlstrom that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He called Los Angeles city attorney's office pleading for help. Well, its about time.
At the end of the long haul, Mr. Rogge faces up to 31 years in prison and is an illegal immigrant. I can't image why it took so long for this identity crime to be brought to a screeching halt.
Article by: RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
"Drinks With Youth Appeal Draw Growing Opposition" (4/13/07 p. A12)
Isn't it bad enough that cigarette companies are purposing targeting the youth market? Now there is a growing concern about alcohol companies doing the same thing by curbing under-age drinking. Obviously, no good can come from this one.
I'll admit it. I'm in college and I like to have fun. However, I'm only 20 years old and legally shouldn't be having that kind of fun quite yet. I'm not even a big fan of the taste of alcohol. I like to minimize the taste as much as possible. Drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirinoff Ice. I've contributed to the whole point of the article, shame on me. According to The Times, health researchers say that one reason products like Bacardi Silver and Zimas are so popular is because the taste of alcohol is faint. These types of products are contributing to under-age drinking. They're the kind of drinks that get teens comfortable with alcohol. Very true.
Is it ethical for these companies to "target" under-age drinkers? Absolutely not. Can anyone prove that they're actually doing this? No. That is maybe part of the problem. Several youth groups in California are prompting the state to adopt stricter rules for drinks that contain distilled spirits but are sold and taxed as beer. Personally, I don't see that as a good plan to stop this problem.
The article stated that Maine has already reclassified the drinks, commonly known as alcopops and flavored malt beverages, as hard liquor. There are proposals to do the same in Arkansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. The California board is holding a series of public hearings, including one in May, that could lead to new restrictions by the end of the summer. This law would make these drinks more expensive (the tax would jump to $3.30 a gallon from 20 cents a gallon) and it would be more difficult to buy. One second thought, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Opponents of the effort in California, including small-business owners, the Flavored Malt Beverage Coalition and other industry groups, argue that the debate about drinks is surrounded by "significant misconceptions," in the words of Gary Galanis, a spokesman for Diageo, one of the world's largest alcohol manufacturers and the maker of Smirnoff. Along with many other flavored malt beverages are roughly as potent as beer, containing 5 percent to 7 percent alcohol per volume compared with 4 percent to 6 percent beer. The drinks come from brewing, not distilling, he said, and the alcohol in the beverages stems from added flavoring, not hard liquor. This statement sounds exaggerated, which is unethical for companies to do. They need to step up and accept the fact that their company is contributing to under-age drinking, which is something they need to take seriously. When people like Mr. Galanis are saying there is no reason to change their product, they need to open their eyes and realize that maybe there is.
Most high school students drink with a purpose: to get drunk. It's sad, but true. However, alcopops are not very effective unless you are a lightweight. There are those that likes hots of whiskey and vodka, which obviously makes people become drunk quickly. Most teens say they don't need to be trained to drink, yet, they don't always realize that, yes, they do.
Maybe the big problem is that alcohol is incredibly easy for minors to get their hands on. That seems more reasonable than the taste contributing to the problem. Who can rally judge? All the factors that under-age drinking is something that is almost impossible to prevent. Its going to happen, let's just hope that teens try to be somewhat ethical and make good judgements.
Article by: CAROLYN MARSHALL
I'll admit it. I'm in college and I like to have fun. However, I'm only 20 years old and legally shouldn't be having that kind of fun quite yet. I'm not even a big fan of the taste of alcohol. I like to minimize the taste as much as possible. Drinks like Mike's Hard Lemonade and Smirinoff Ice. I've contributed to the whole point of the article, shame on me. According to The Times, health researchers say that one reason products like Bacardi Silver and Zimas are so popular is because the taste of alcohol is faint. These types of products are contributing to under-age drinking. They're the kind of drinks that get teens comfortable with alcohol. Very true.
Is it ethical for these companies to "target" under-age drinkers? Absolutely not. Can anyone prove that they're actually doing this? No. That is maybe part of the problem. Several youth groups in California are prompting the state to adopt stricter rules for drinks that contain distilled spirits but are sold and taxed as beer. Personally, I don't see that as a good plan to stop this problem.
The article stated that Maine has already reclassified the drinks, commonly known as alcopops and flavored malt beverages, as hard liquor. There are proposals to do the same in Arkansas, Illinois, and Nebraska. The California board is holding a series of public hearings, including one in May, that could lead to new restrictions by the end of the summer. This law would make these drinks more expensive (the tax would jump to $3.30 a gallon from 20 cents a gallon) and it would be more difficult to buy. One second thought, this doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Opponents of the effort in California, including small-business owners, the Flavored Malt Beverage Coalition and other industry groups, argue that the debate about drinks is surrounded by "significant misconceptions," in the words of Gary Galanis, a spokesman for Diageo, one of the world's largest alcohol manufacturers and the maker of Smirnoff. Along with many other flavored malt beverages are roughly as potent as beer, containing 5 percent to 7 percent alcohol per volume compared with 4 percent to 6 percent beer. The drinks come from brewing, not distilling, he said, and the alcohol in the beverages stems from added flavoring, not hard liquor. This statement sounds exaggerated, which is unethical for companies to do. They need to step up and accept the fact that their company is contributing to under-age drinking, which is something they need to take seriously. When people like Mr. Galanis are saying there is no reason to change their product, they need to open their eyes and realize that maybe there is.
Most high school students drink with a purpose: to get drunk. It's sad, but true. However, alcopops are not very effective unless you are a lightweight. There are those that likes hots of whiskey and vodka, which obviously makes people become drunk quickly. Most teens say they don't need to be trained to drink, yet, they don't always realize that, yes, they do.
Maybe the big problem is that alcohol is incredibly easy for minors to get their hands on. That seems more reasonable than the taste contributing to the problem. Who can rally judge? All the factors that under-age drinking is something that is almost impossible to prevent. Its going to happen, let's just hope that teens try to be somewhat ethical and make good judgements.
Article by: CAROLYN MARSHALL
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"He's Not My Grandpa. He's My Dad." (4/12/07 p. E1)
The ethical issues that were raised in this article, "He's Not My Grandpa. He's My Dad" were not necessarly considered ethical or unethical. It depends on how the situration is viewd and whether or not it hits close to home for readers.
The article began by informing readers that actor Tony Randall was anxious to become a father, at the age of 77. He said he looked forward to only being 90, yes 90, when his unborn child was 15 and they could go out and play together. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall died at age 84 in 2004, leaving being Julia, who was 7 and Jefferson, who was only 6. Like other young children, Julia and Jefferson will grow up not knowing and maybe not even remembering their father. Is that ethical? That Mr. Randall wanted children so badly, even though the possibility of him not seeing them grow up was very great?
Men like Randall that have children in their mush later years of life have been dubbed start-over dads, or SODs for short. SODs have created their own little controversy. Some see these older fathers as having the advantage of being more laid back and easy going on their youngsters. Others, however, see SODs as inherently selfish. These people claim that it is not fair the child that they may and probably will grow up without a father. According to the article, people are outraged that SODs are intentionally depriving a child of a father. But what if all start-over dad wanted before he died was a child? Does fulfilling someone's dream of becoming a father even though he may be older make him a bad, selfish person?
According to The Times, this is such a new phenomenon that there is a dearth of studies about it. Men are living longer and having families they may have never been given the chance to have. I don't see this as unethical, but as a chance for a person to experience parenthood.
Another plus to SODhood is that most of these men aren't struggling financially. They have made their place in the working world and most are very well off. They can support their family fully and afford to give their children more of what other, younger fathers may not be able to.
On the flip side, however, there are growing indications that SODhood may entail risks for children. Studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with autism, schizophrenia, dwarfism, and other serious problems. These are pretty serious risk. If these kinds of problems are repeatedly showing up, these SODs may want to look into adoption if becoming a father is something they desire. To possibly have to put a child through any of the listed risked doesn't seem worth it.
Emotional and physical problems are very common in families with SODs as well. One father, Moe Belin, 84, has a 17-year old daughter, Mollie. He suffered a heart attack and when he came to all he wanted was his daughter. When she was brought to him, he got sick on her. "It bothers me that i put this little girl through that," Belin said. Many other fathers are finding themselves at the mercy of serious health problems that they are unable to shield their young children from.
Tony Randall's widow, Heather, wonders if she did the right thing for her children by her decision. She explains she has strains of guilt after all. She tells her daughter she maybe shouldn't marry and older man. Mr. Randall will never get to see his children graduate, go off to college, or walk his daughter down the aisle. Most SODs won't have these kinds of chances either.
The ethics here don't point fingers at what is right or wrong, because in the end it is ultimately each person's choice. Many elderly males may see their time as limited and want to rush to become a father. They're in such a hurry that many of the real, need to be considered factors of SODhood are neglected until it is too late.
Article by: THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
The article began by informing readers that actor Tony Randall was anxious to become a father, at the age of 77. He said he looked forward to only being 90, yes 90, when his unborn child was 15 and they could go out and play together. Unfortunately, Mr. Randall died at age 84 in 2004, leaving being Julia, who was 7 and Jefferson, who was only 6. Like other young children, Julia and Jefferson will grow up not knowing and maybe not even remembering their father. Is that ethical? That Mr. Randall wanted children so badly, even though the possibility of him not seeing them grow up was very great?
Men like Randall that have children in their mush later years of life have been dubbed start-over dads, or SODs for short. SODs have created their own little controversy. Some see these older fathers as having the advantage of being more laid back and easy going on their youngsters. Others, however, see SODs as inherently selfish. These people claim that it is not fair the child that they may and probably will grow up without a father. According to the article, people are outraged that SODs are intentionally depriving a child of a father. But what if all start-over dad wanted before he died was a child? Does fulfilling someone's dream of becoming a father even though he may be older make him a bad, selfish person?
According to The Times, this is such a new phenomenon that there is a dearth of studies about it. Men are living longer and having families they may have never been given the chance to have. I don't see this as unethical, but as a chance for a person to experience parenthood.
Another plus to SODhood is that most of these men aren't struggling financially. They have made their place in the working world and most are very well off. They can support their family fully and afford to give their children more of what other, younger fathers may not be able to.
On the flip side, however, there are growing indications that SODhood may entail risks for children. Studies have shown that older fathers are more likely to have children with autism, schizophrenia, dwarfism, and other serious problems. These are pretty serious risk. If these kinds of problems are repeatedly showing up, these SODs may want to look into adoption if becoming a father is something they desire. To possibly have to put a child through any of the listed risked doesn't seem worth it.
Emotional and physical problems are very common in families with SODs as well. One father, Moe Belin, 84, has a 17-year old daughter, Mollie. He suffered a heart attack and when he came to all he wanted was his daughter. When she was brought to him, he got sick on her. "It bothers me that i put this little girl through that," Belin said. Many other fathers are finding themselves at the mercy of serious health problems that they are unable to shield their young children from.
Tony Randall's widow, Heather, wonders if she did the right thing for her children by her decision. She explains she has strains of guilt after all. She tells her daughter she maybe shouldn't marry and older man. Mr. Randall will never get to see his children graduate, go off to college, or walk his daughter down the aisle. Most SODs won't have these kinds of chances either.
The ethics here don't point fingers at what is right or wrong, because in the end it is ultimately each person's choice. Many elderly males may see their time as limited and want to rush to become a father. They're in such a hurry that many of the real, need to be considered factors of SODhood are neglected until it is too late.
Article by: THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
Thursday, April 19, 2007
"Duke Prosecuter Throws Out Case Against Players" (4/14/07 p. A1)
There are some very evident ethical issues arising in the case of three Duke students who were found innocent of all sexual assault, kidnapping and rape charges that were brought against them nearly a year ago.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
The three boys, Reade W. Seligmann, David F. Evans, and Collin Finnerty, were on Duke's lacrosse team when a stripper claimed they sexually assaulted her at a party in March of 2006. The boys were released because there wasn't enough, or any for that matter, evidence against them. It is believed that this case was the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. The main ethical issue behind this case was there was never any credible evidence that an attack even occurred. So, why then, were these boys behind bars enduring a year of complete hell?
The Durham district attorney, Michale B. Nifong, is facing a long road ahead of him. North Carolina state bar had begun taking an extraordinary step of formally accusing Mr. Nifong of numerous ethical violations, including withholding exculpatory evidence and misleading the judge who presided over the case, as stated in the article.
If this was known all along, I'm confused as to why a year later these men are just now getting classified as innocent? If there was sufficient evidence isn't it standard ethical rules that you're innocent until proven guilty, not just assumed guilty? Hmm...something here doesn't sound right to me, and I'm fairly new to this case. The article reaffirmed that there was lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.
The Times also stated that the Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. In a way, this case has possibly opened the door for this kind mishap to be prevented in the future. If these three men hadn't been found innocent they could have spent decades in jail for a crime they possibly didn't commit. They chime into this thinking by letting everyone know they are just as innocent now as they were a year ago.
Mr. Nifong has denied violating any ethics rules, although he has acknowledged mishandling some evidence and making intemperate and unjustified remarks about the Duke lacrosse team. Excuse me, but if he is admitting to that, isn't he basically admitting he was wrong all along? If the ethics charges against him are upheld, Mr. Nifong faces a range of possible penalties, including disbarment. Finally, some ethical procedures are being brought out of this whole ordeal.
Despite a year of complete hell, all three men have carried themselves with dignity even though they were being treated very unfairly. There were errors from day one and nothing in this case seemed to be handled like I would expect our legal system to handle things. Whether its ethics or legal issues, innocent people are finding themselves in a web of trouble they don't deserve to be in. Hopefully in the future, this problem is sorted out and criminal cases are treated appropriately.
Article by: By DUFF WILSON AND DAVID BARSTOW; DUFF WILSON REPORTED FROM RALEIGH, N.C., AND DAVID BARSTOW FROM NEW YORK. BRENDA GOODMAN CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM ATLANTA, AND MOSI SECRET FROM DURHAM, N.C.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
"DNA Results Announced in Smith Case" (4/11/07 p. A19)
I'm sick of hearing about Anna Nicole Smith. The New York Times published a small article about the DNA results revealing that Larry Birkhead is the father of Anna Nicole's daughter, Dannielynn.
The ethics, in my opinion, behind this article were the fact that giving it publicity is the attention Birkhead wants. He emerged from the court room yelling "I told you so!" That's mature. Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole's former lawyer was listed on the birth certificate has been fighting for custody of the child since Anna's death on February 8.
Dannielynn has been living at Stern's residence since Anna's death. Stern was reported saying that he isn't going to fight Birkhead for custody, he is going to make sure Birkhead actually gets full custody. This is another issue of ethics. Obviously Stern has been a good father-figure to the baby and maybe he should take a stand against someone that is screaming "I told you so!" on national television.
The other ethical issues that arose in this small, yet, information packed selection were that Dannilynn will inherit millions of dollars from her mother, who on another ethical note, was a slut if nobody was certain who the father was. This is especially true since the real father wasn't even on the birth certificate.
Here I go contributing to Birkhead's 15 minutes of fame.
Article by: CARYN JAMES
The ethics, in my opinion, behind this article were the fact that giving it publicity is the attention Birkhead wants. He emerged from the court room yelling "I told you so!" That's mature. Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole's former lawyer was listed on the birth certificate has been fighting for custody of the child since Anna's death on February 8.
Dannielynn has been living at Stern's residence since Anna's death. Stern was reported saying that he isn't going to fight Birkhead for custody, he is going to make sure Birkhead actually gets full custody. This is another issue of ethics. Obviously Stern has been a good father-figure to the baby and maybe he should take a stand against someone that is screaming "I told you so!" on national television.
The other ethical issues that arose in this small, yet, information packed selection were that Dannilynn will inherit millions of dollars from her mother, who on another ethical note, was a slut if nobody was certain who the father was. This is especially true since the real father wasn't even on the birth certificate.
Here I go contributing to Birkhead's 15 minutes of fame.
Article by: CARYN JAMES
"A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs" (4/9/07 p. A1)
Blogs made the front page of the New York Times and I almost missed it. I found it though and good news, it involves ethical issues. Added bonus!
The article is what the title says. Blogs don't have many guidelines and that is looking to be changed. Blogs can be an unpleasant place. There are millions of blogs people aren't going to agree with and because of this, they may leave inappropriate comments that can be harmful on many different levels.
According to The Times, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is involved with the creation of Web 2.0 began working with Jimmy Wales, crater of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of what to many would be common sense- though already controversial - guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
I am in total favor of this. Unwanted, inappropriate comments and blogs are something that I don't see as necessary. I believe that it would be extremely ethical to have some sort of blogging guidelines.
In addition to my way of thinking, the article went on to state that chief among the recommendations for bloggers is that they consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. Some would say that this tactic would interfere with free speech, however, civility backs up what free speech really is.
Mr. O'Reilly posts his recommendations on his company blog, which is very well written and full of useful information and excellent points. It is definitely a blog worth visiting and looking around. Mr. Wales' proposed guidelines can be found on his blog, another very interesting blog that stems out in many different directions. The proposed code of conduct these two highly experienced bloggers have put forth are very practical and appropriate. The information and ideas they express are highly ethical and something every blogger should take the time to read and consider. Their whole proposed system would, of course, be voluntary and the community would be expected to police itself. To me, this (right now) seems close to impossible, however, I truly believe with enough effort and publicity this could and hopefully will begin to take place. The publicity has already begun and has many supporters including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger. Weinberger's blog is another worth taking time to look at and explore.
Of course, meeting a common ground for such a code of conduct will be a rather difficult task. It is really impossible to get even a decent sized portion of the millions of bloggers to come to a common consensus.
However, people are getting harshly harassed over their blogs and it is more than ethical that someone is at least attempting to put an end to this. Kathy Sierra, a high tech book author reported getting death threats over a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolite comments left by visitor to someone's personal Web site. She considered giving up blogging all together. This has gone too far. Death threats? Someone should be able to delete whatever comments they wish. I know that myself, for example has an online profile both on facebook and myspace. I have gotten several unwanted comments that I have deleted because they either upset me or they were something I didn't want others to see. In my mind, facebook and myspace are both personal, like a blog, and if I don't want something on there, I am free to delete it without getting grief (or death threats) for doing so.
Deleting comments aren't the only thing people are harassed for. If someone disagrees with the blogger's beliefs they are also tormented through emails and other means of contact. Some people, a majority of which are female bloggers, also have stalkers that create blogs about them and torment them that way. Cyberbullying (which sounds ridiculous, by the way) needs to end and I'm so glad that people are standing up to help solve this problem.
Bottom line: blogging can be a great hobby (or career?) if handled and maintained appropriately. Bloggers are responsible for what is on their blog, whether it be comments and personal opinions. I know that if someone posts something profane on my blog, they can expect I'm not going to tolerate that and will delete it. It is my right to get rid of it as much as it is yours to post it.
**Other blogs mentioned in the article that someone that is interested in this topic, or anyone for that matter should check out:
BlogHer
Richard Silverstein's Blog (He was one of those mentioned that was harassed because of his views. Someone actually created a blog with Silverstein's picture in pornographic context.)
Article by: BRAD STONE
The article is what the title says. Blogs don't have many guidelines and that is looking to be changed. Blogs can be an unpleasant place. There are millions of blogs people aren't going to agree with and because of this, they may leave inappropriate comments that can be harmful on many different levels.
According to The Times, Tim O'Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is involved with the creation of Web 2.0 began working with Jimmy Wales, crater of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of what to many would be common sense- though already controversial - guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
I am in total favor of this. Unwanted, inappropriate comments and blogs are something that I don't see as necessary. I believe that it would be extremely ethical to have some sort of blogging guidelines.
In addition to my way of thinking, the article went on to state that chief among the recommendations for bloggers is that they consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship. Some would say that this tactic would interfere with free speech, however, civility backs up what free speech really is.
Mr. O'Reilly posts his recommendations on his company blog, which is very well written and full of useful information and excellent points. It is definitely a blog worth visiting and looking around. Mr. Wales' proposed guidelines can be found on his blog, another very interesting blog that stems out in many different directions. The proposed code of conduct these two highly experienced bloggers have put forth are very practical and appropriate. The information and ideas they express are highly ethical and something every blogger should take the time to read and consider. Their whole proposed system would, of course, be voluntary and the community would be expected to police itself. To me, this (right now) seems close to impossible, however, I truly believe with enough effort and publicity this could and hopefully will begin to take place. The publicity has already begun and has many supporters including David Weinberger, a well-known blogger. Weinberger's blog is another worth taking time to look at and explore.
Of course, meeting a common ground for such a code of conduct will be a rather difficult task. It is really impossible to get even a decent sized portion of the millions of bloggers to come to a common consensus.
However, people are getting harshly harassed over their blogs and it is more than ethical that someone is at least attempting to put an end to this. Kathy Sierra
Deleting comments aren't the only thing people are harassed for. If someone disagrees with the blogger's beliefs they are also tormented through emails and other means of contact. Some people, a majority of which are female bloggers, also have stalkers that create blogs about them and torment them that way. Cyberbullying (which sounds ridiculous, by the way) needs to end and I'm so glad that people are standing up to help solve this problem.
Bottom line: blogging can be a great hobby (or career?) if handled and maintained appropriately. Bloggers are responsible for what is on their blog, whether it be comments and personal opinions. I know that if someone posts something profane on my blog, they can expect I'm not going to tolerate that and will delete it. It is my right to get rid of it as much as it is yours to post it.
**Other blogs mentioned in the article that someone that is interested in this topic, or anyone for that matter should check out:
BlogHer
Richard Silverstein's Blog (He was one of those mentioned that was harassed because of his views. Someone actually created a blog with Silverstein's picture in pornographic context.)
Article by: BRAD STONE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)