White House: Obama Not to 'Serve as the Speech Police for the Democratic Party'

Well, as long as the left stops being the speech police for the right, then I'm OK with this.

A top aide to President Obama says Americans must decide for themselves how to be civil with each other -- a rather sharp departure from comments that Obama has himself made in the past.

In an interview with the WMAL Morning Majority Wednesday, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said the Obama administration is not going to be drawn into the "gotcha game" of reacting to comments made by Teamsters President James Hoffa, Jr. At a Labor Day rally in Detroit, Hoffa urged the President to use unions as his army to fight back against the Tea Party and "take these son-of-a-bitches out."

Pfeiffer told WMAL that President Obama is not going to "serve as the speech police for the Democratic party."

"What everyone should do is make their best judgment of how they be civil," said Pfeiffer. "What I don't think makes sense is to distract from the major issues at hand to try to get everyone to go back and approve and disapprove of every single thing that every single person has said," he added.

So civility is what we want it to be.

Thanks for the helpful tips, Dan!

Blogger Code of Conduct: Good Luck WIth That

Daniel Henninger discusses the proposed Blogger Code of Conduct by Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales. All I can say is good luck trying to import civility upon the perpetually angry leftist bloggers. No need to name names; they know who they are.

I have no doubt most on the right or the middle would comply with it and act like civilized human beings, but try telling it to the angry left and look where it gets you.

But there is a harder side to this tension. After news spread of the O'Reilly-Wales proposal, an (needless to say) angry battalion of bloggers counterattacked, crying "censorship." Now we're beyond the merely obnoxious culture of chin-dribble. Now we're talking politics and power. So the cry goes up: You can't tell us how to talk. That's "censorship."

The censorship claim is often made by political Web players who want to be "free" to use whatever means will achieve the end of driving their opponents over the cliff. Consider the Congressional Black Caucus. Its affiliation with Fox News to conduct presidential debates was fire-bombed recently on "progressive" Web sites. Example: "Guess it takes a whole lot of grease to fry CBC's chicken." Scared, the three major Democratic presidential candidates pulled out. Censorship? Try doublespeak. The strategy of deploying charged and hyper-aggressive language is now evident: First intimidate one's targets, then coerce them--into conformity or silence. And do it always under the banner of free speech and democracy.

There is no evident political coloration to the broader concern that's arisen about conduct on the Web. The anti-civility trolls are in restaurants, stadiums, theaters, planes, church, the airwaves, in dreams. This is merely a recognition that rules of the road can indeed enhance, not suppress, the flow of truly free expression and minimize the already ample frictions of daily life. Better late than never.