A code for bloggers

The Guardian reports on widespread support for a code of conduct for bloggers:

Nearly half of all internet users would support a voluntary code of conduct for bloggers and online commentators, according to research.

A survey by legal firm DLA Piper said 46% of web users think bloggers should sign up to a code that reflected the laws on defamation, intellectual property and incitement, with 15% ambivalent and 4% strongly opposed.

Around 34% of bloggers opposed the idea but 32% supported it.

Three quarters of web users who have posted comment on blogs and news sites were oblivious to libel law, said the report, even though the person posting the comment, rather than the host site, would be liable for any offence.

The survey highlights the dangers created not only by self-publishing but also by more innocuous user content, such as video, photos and comment posted to media-sharing sites.

Only one in three of the web users surveyed said they had actually read the legal liabilities in the terms and conditions of the sites they use, though 14% had had material removed from a site in the past for breaching those terms.

Duncan Calow, a DLA Piper digital media law specialist, said there was a dangerous perception that user-generated content is immune to the law.

"The combination of confusion and complacency about the relationship between the law and UGC puts users at risk as they come under increasing scrutiny online," Calow added.

"It is clear that many internet users would benefit from some clearer guidance about posting comment online."

Calow said there is a difference between censorship and protection, and although a code of practice would not change the law it might help to make bloggers and web users more aware of the legal implications of what they post on the net.

Read more here.

Comments

[Sam Clifford]

It's certainly interesting. Where does one draw the line, though, when it comes to humourous material such as Landeryou's recent post combining "inappropriate treatment of quokkas" with the chair-sniffing incident?