Can open source processes close doors to speech?

Jimmy Wales and Tim O'Reilly have begun an interesting experiment.(Picture from TheAllINeed.)

They want to create a bloggers code of conduct, through Wikia, aimed at drawing a line against abuse and flame wars.

While they insist this is voluntary, in fact it can easily become mandatory, once blog hosts like Typepad and ISPs adopt this code in their terms of service.

Robert Scoble calls himself uneasy over the code, noting he has violated its precepts many times, but he feels enormous pressure to "get on board," because O'Reilly has power within the industry.

This blog is not impacted by the code. We have a much stricter code here at ZDNet, one which is not written down, nor needs to be. Stay (roughly) on topic (this post may be close to the border), stay professional at all times, don't cost ZDNet any credibility, be transparent.

This is a code I endorse, one I try to follow in my personal blog and everywhere else. I'm the only Dana Blankenhorn there is, anywhere, so if I screw up I'm easy to find.

But should such a code, should any code, be mandated, through contracts, and should those who violate such a code risk losing their "blogging privileges?"

I don't think so.

It seems to me that having our stupidity stored, available for later use against us, is all the sanction we should need. What you write online, whether in a comment thread, an e-mail, a blog, or a news piece, can be found. If there is legal reason to unmask you, your supposedly anonymous comments will be unmasked.

We're all walking on eggshells already. It's just that some of us don't know it.