With you 1000% on this one, Chris.

What's wrong with signing onto a professional code of ethics? If you agree to all these principals, what harm does it do, to you or others, to sign this pledge?

I'm not involved in the campaign in any way, but I found your explanation lacking. You seem worried that the pledge will be used to "tear down those who refuse to sign it." I guess the implicit argument is that by signing it, you'd be lending support to this tearing down of others who refuse to sign it on principle. Which is a circular argument unless there's some other reason not to sign the pledge.

On the other hand, this pledge can do good by pointing out the hypocrisy of those who sign it and then violate it. You do this yourself when you single out Michelle Malkin. Your argument against Malkin has less weight when her conduct is compared to some nebulous sense of "what's right" then when her conduct is compared to an enumerated conduct of behavior that she has agreed to.

I don't doubt that this pledge, like most voluntary codes with no enforcement mechanism other then social shame, won't do much. But it can do something, as you demonstrate in your post, and I fail to see any harm it does.

To argue by analogy, we expect our elected officials to uphold the Constitution. Yet we still make them take a pledge to do so. That pledge doesn't keep them from violating the Constitution, but we'd still be incensed if they refused to take the pledge.

If, as you say, you adhere to the principles in any case, that's what matters.  But you raise some points that deserve answering:

Why should anyone have to sign a pledge saying that will they act in a manner that is obviously the right way to act?

Who is saying that you have to do it?

Why have so many people signed this pledge even though they still link to people who have obviously broken that pledge....

You should ask them -- not just post the query on your own site as a process point, but ask them.  There are no formal enforcement mechanisms for adherence, and certainly no formal mechanisms for for determining who "genuine" or "sincere" adherents are.  You may point to this as a point of weakness, but that's the nature of voluntary associations.  Frankly, to be ham-handed about it would be a mistake.

What purpose does this pledge really serve?

You appear to have answered this question in your own mind: it's a nefarious pretext for the shaming of non-signatories, most of the prominent  ones among whom are on the left.  The reality is that we feel that the affirmation of basic principles is necessary in light of recent events on left and right -- and that it doesn't hurt to have a place for folks to affirm their adherence to this ethos.

I did all of that long before the pledge was ever thought up by Josh Trevino, Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin, or whoever.

When you list the names who participated in the crafting and/or initial endorsement of Online Integrity, don't forget Armando, mcjoan, Max Sawicky, Mark A.R. Kleiman, John Aravosis, Ezra Klein, and Maryscott O'Conner.  Hardly a right-wing effort, that.

Isn't that the real implication here--that I, or whoever else refuses to sign their pledge, isn't into "online integrity?"

I strongly urge you to not buy into the paranoid zeitgeist at Townhouse and elsewhere.  Online Integrity is what it is, and what it is is open for all to see.  Anyone is free to contact me, or any of the other endorsers and crafters on both left and right, for any clarification of elaboration you might need.

Bizarre bedfellows, indeed.

I truly don't get this, Chris. The effort seems innocuous enough and probably useful. The problem with your analogies are that burning down schools, etc are clearly against a nearly-universally accepted code of conduct we've all implicitly agreed to. "Blog ethics," however, are far more nebulous because the medium is so new, so an effort like this can help to highlight those ethics and help in any effort to ostracize those who violate them (future Michelle Malkins ... or Ms. Hate-screed herself).

I've argued with Tacitus from way, way back, but his primary involvement in the project is neither here nor there when evaluating the usefulness of it.

Online ethical standards by major bloggers (mydd.com, huffingtonpost, dailykos, etc) need not be written down and signed like say a lawyer has to do, but they do need to be understood. The problem of course is whether they are, and what if anything, are the rules that are understood to exist. As for what the right does- I am not sure how that applies to whether everyone should follow the same standard.

I signed it but you make a good case for not signing it.

Delinking makes no sense. I link people of integrity to begin with (this does not mean the people I do not link are without integrity, I have other criteria). If they prove over time to be the south end of a northbound horse, bu-bye.

Chris, you are intellectually dishonest.

Chris,

I applaud you. Integrity isn't found in a list of names...it is found in the principles each person upholds by choice. To sign a pledge when you already honor the intent of that pledge serves no purpose. To me, it is akin to becoming a born-again Christian...if you live a Christian life, why on earth would you need to be born-again. Hey, I'm all for people having second chances...but the bar for those who don't need a second chance need not be set by those who do.

Another example...recently the President signed an order that his staff needed to attend ethical training classes. Well in my thinking, why do grown adults need ethical training...shouldn't they already be ethical.

Paper is cheap! Principles are priceless! Those who have principles don't need paper...those who do often lack principles.

more observations here:

www.thoughttheater.com

The offline bit on "rules" is wrong. In my State Committee, it's the reformers who just got on who ant Roberts Rules. It's the old timers who complain about it.

We have 3 hr meetings where the nothing gets done, because the old ego bloviards want to hear themselves talk. Every discussion tangents. Any important issues get sidelined.

Rules of discussion can be manipulated to do what you say. But without them nothing gets done. That's why any diverse org needs them. Most DFA groups can run without them, because everyone mostly on the same page. But Dem group is all over the place, and needs the rules to manage the debate.

My suggestion to you Chris is to learn Roberts and use that knowledge to stop misuse.

I'm sorry, but all I can think of when I read about things like this are the "loyalty pledges" people were forced to make in the 1940s and '50s, and if you refused to sign one, you were assumed to be guilty of being a communist and could easily be blacklisted.  This online integrity pledge is a sham.

Why are wingers trying to push an 'integrity pledge' that they will likely violate before the ink of their very own signature is dry?  

Is it because they want to escalate their new brand of McCarthyism?

"Again, no one who's been paying any attention to this sorry affair thinks that the contents of the list are private."

this is not true josh, and i think you know it.

Following in the footsteps of Kramer refusing to wear the AIDS ribbon.

well, okay I signed this one http://blogintegrityblogspotcom.blogspot .com/2006/05/statement-of-principles.htm l

But still! I signed.

Why the hell is this even an issue? This is just another lame attempt to control the debate, Hannity style. A favorite tactic of the wingnutz.

Don't play their game. If someone doesn't like your ethics, or lack there of, tell them to go pound sand.

They need to clean up their own backyard before telling anyone else what to do.

No matter what you do, the RWs are going to whine about something, anything, that distracts from the failed policies of the ideology. That's all this is and it should be given the attention it deserves, ie NONE!

Looks like Sadly No has beat me to it.

Damn Him!

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002716.h tml