Netiquette has been around for a while, where you are online generally dictates how you behave and what aspect of netiquette you follow. Whilst there are some general rule these often go out of the window in the correct context. For example, cross-posting pr0n is not against the rules on forum that openly advocates the free movement of pixelated filth.
The key to any form of netiquette therefore is actually dictated not by the community as such, but by the place in which they are applied. Hence Jay Stile's 2000 Webby Award winning site, Stile Project (not work safe will offend), has a very different set of netiquette to somewhere such as AOL moderated family chatrooms.
Blogs, like this site, and others, are unique individual spaces online. Effectively they are they're own little bulletin board. Owned by their owners, and run as their owners see fit. They may share a theme or subject with others, but the netiquette which they fall within is that which is held by the owner.
There are of course some authoritarians out there that wish to make all blogs of a certain type, for example political blogs, act in certain way. They would like to see rulebooks that control how one interacts. They site things like the "right to reply" as justification. In my view where they fail is believing that they have a right to reply.
Of course the argument is arse about face, because it claims to be in favour of debate whilst simultaneously dictating the means by which that debate should be framed. It's rather like the fabled "consultation" processes that Government love so much.
But whilst these people are evidently wrong in their Cromwellian puritanism designed to reduce moral poverty on the blogosphere, they certainly should be allowed to let their authoritarian views be heard. Therefore, I suggest to them that they submit an RFC that way they can have "This site is RFC xxx Compliant" on their pages. Apply the so-called "right to reply" to the Internet and see what they think, but don't cry when they plonk you.