Chilling effect

A while back, I got in trouble at my job for making a parody website spoofing where I worked.
I'd put together a set of articles that shamed no one, but were basically distopian views of office work.

The reaction by management was not good. Rather than stick to my guns, I folded the website. A man's gotta eat.

In one of the discussions I had with the higher ups, this point was made:

Whatever my intent, the true meaning of what I'd done resided in the audience.

In other words - the audience's reaction is what my words meant.

After careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that this point of view is total crap.

What got me going strolling down this memory late was this post on CNet:

Bloggers beware: You're liable to commit libel by Steve Tobak

...As for me, I'm planning to play it safe. I mean, how hard can it be to say nice things about people?

It would be an oversimplification of what Mr. Tobak is arguing to say that he wants people to stop posting things that are not so nice, but I can't help but have a belligerent reaction to his article:

What do you mean I can't post whatever the hell I want on my blog? It's a blog! Opinion, posted! Deal with it!

I am sure that the everyone-is-published reality brings more people under the rules of publishing, but surely there is a place to distinguish a private blogger's opinion from the claptrap of nationally published blowhards like Robert Novak.

If jerks like Novak can out our spies and publish hearsay innuendo without prosecution, I would think the blogosphere needn't restrain themselves too much.