Protecting Your First Amendment Right to "Managed Civil Dialogue"

Some half-wit named Tim O'Reilly (is there something about that last name that causes brain damage?) is proposing a set of "guidelines" for civility on the internet. I've chosen to be uncivil to him because I'd rather have him and his ilk leave the web in a hissy fit than earnestly starting us off on the slippery slope toward "managed civil dialogue."

No, that "managed civil dialogue" phrase is not my sarcastic adoption of Orwellian phraseology - it comes straight from Mr. O'Reilly. I kid you not - here's what he said - "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.”

Please read that quotation until you vomit. Free speech is freer when its managed.
This kind of "nice guidelines" crap demands aversion therapy. Aversion therapy may be strong enough to prevent idiots like Tim O'Reilly from using your best instincts against yourself.

I've got nothing against niceness, but I have a HUGE problem with proposals to legislate, however informally, good manners. I generally try to be nice and civil, but I enjoy my occasional outbursts, and look forward with anticipation to the day I unleash the profane coinage my wife forbids me to type. Sites like The Rude Pundit bring joy to my life.

The last thing the internets need is some egghead scumbag trying to make money from blogging to show up in the New York Times of all places to tell us how we ought to behave. Generally, we're behaving pretty well, and, when we're not, cry me a river. If language frightens you, you might want to avoid blogs, and stick with the rigidly edited New York Times.