Online integrity…

A useful set of principles to which Slugger is one of the latest signees. Help us keep to them!

# Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online. This includes respect for the non-public nature of their personal contact information, the inviolability of their homes, and the safety of their families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted. The separateness of private persons’ professional lives should also be respected as much as is reasonable.

# Public figures are entitled to respect for the non-public nature of their personal, non-professional contact information, and their privacy with regard to their homes and families. No information which might lead others to invade these spaces should be posted.

# Persons seeking anonymity or pseudonymity online should have their wishes in this regard respected as much as is reasonable. Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behaviour.

# Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.

  • joeCanuck

    sounds good to me.

  • Rory

    This seems, in modern parlance, to be a “no brainer” to me. Therefore I ask myself “what’s the need ?”. It seems like asking someone I don’t know, before asking them into my my home, if they will behave themselves and advising what the penaltoes may be if they do not.

    Too, too petty bourgeois, darlings.

  • páid

    don’t see any beijing or delhi based organizations signed up. so lets hope they play along.

  • I need answers first

    who is this organisation?
    where did they come from?
    why do they want this?
    why should bloggs have to differ from the media? because the media would never sign up to this

  • mick de dublin anarchist

    In general I think it’s sensible, BUT:

    “Private persons are entitled to respect for their privacy regardless of their activities online”

    ‘regardless’ is a bit strong for me. Paedo rings? Neo-nazis organising attacks?

  • Occasional Commentator

    “Exceptions include cases of criminal, misleading, or intentionally disruptive behaviour.”

    These exceptions are too broad. If you suspect somebody of criminal activity, it would be better to report it to your local police (or similar authority). If I suspect somebody has breached copyright on slugger, surely that doesn’t allow me to publish their personal details on Slugger?

    And ‘misleading’? Most of what is written during the more heated debates on Slugger is misleading (including this comment no doubt!).

    I’m not impressed by these nice sounding lists of rights. They’re always full of so many broad exceptions as to be toothless, just like the various international conventions on human rights and the like.

  • Mick Fealty

    I only signed up to on the basis that it related to personal details. You are right of course. A chunk of the debate on Slugger is misleading, but mostly only in political terms. I don’t see anything here that contravenes our ‘play the ball not the man’ rule.

    Indeed, the rules of Slugger would not entitle you to publish anything, since as the blog owner I reserve that right for myself.

  • Occasional Commentator

    The second item (and the last sentence of the first) is interesting. I agree with it, but a lot won’t (particular in the media). Some believe that a public figure’s private life is fair game, even if it’s not criminal and has no bearing on their public duties.

  • Sean

    *sigh*

    Another so called blog using censorship on removing Libelous info according to the admins view.

    Wasnt blogs supposed to be to express ones opinion without censorship?

    Nah think I’ll move on from here, it was nice while it lasted though.