About Censorship

deelmakur

Advanced
Aug 26, 2002
203
0
The curious editing, followed by the mysterious disappearance of a short thread featuring an email reply, supposedly from the CEO, is disturbing. Firstly, without evidence to the contrary, one has to assume it was real. The speed with which it was removed sort of validates that. As anyone who has been in a legal action knows, one of the first things the other side does is demand your emails. If you have been following the Wall Street trial about the high tech guy from CSFB, you would have seen that his emails were the backbone of the government's case. It's one of the reasons why lawyers tell corporate bigshots (and others) not to put stuff in those that you don't want looked at. It seems that if you choose to use that medium to communicate, those messages are kind of out there in cyberspace for anybody that can find them. Whomever deleted that should borrow a copy of the Constitution, or at least ask a good lawyer about the status of such communications, as it relates to public access. The real question here is why a smart corporate executive, with a degree from a better than average school, would go outside the corporate communications channel to author something like that. Shame on this board for playing censor. These guys are all over 21.
 
I find it interesting that it disappeared so quickly as well. It would look like with one phone call from CCY the post was removed. I think they have ways of find out who everyone is on these boards and I doubt anyone is really anonymous. If he didn't want it out there to read, he should not have sent it. Did the email say CONFIDENTIAL? I doubt it. I think it showed what a jerk he really is and he moved swiftly to have it magically removed. It all about EGO to these goons.
 
Let me make a few points in response.

First, the Constitution does not apply on message boards. Since you seem so willing to tout the constitution, feel free to dig it out of the closet and note that Amendment I reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

We're not Congress. Some would like to be, but we're not. So, your constitutional point is wholly without merit.

Second, with respect to legal actions, the production of electronic mail correspondence is done under the guise of a subpoena and through the process of discovery - actions overseen and through the directive of the courts. The e-mail in question was not disclosed through a discovery or a subpoena process. So, again, the point is off the mark.

Third, it is a violation of copyright law to reproduce an electronic mail without consent of the sending party. Since I doubt that the author consented to the public dissemination of the letter, the posting of such was a violation of copyright rules.

Fourth, as a matter of nettiquette, it is highly discourteous to publish on a public forum a private e-mail message sent from one party to another without consenting to its public dissemination.

Finally, the email posted did not contain any headers or anything. So, there is no guarantee that the email was actually from the source.
 
PS: Conventional wisdom dictates that you don't screw with the guy who has the key to the front door, but I must say, the response was a bit more strident than it needed to be. If you read my original post, you would have culled from it the essence of where I was going. In big business today, especially troubled ones, the corporate communications function exists to insure that direct responses, such as the purported one, don't happen. This appears not to have been the case. Indeed, the comments attributed to the purported writer are similar to others which have emanated from the company. The recent appearance on CNBC of the gentleman in question, alongside Neeleman, was all one had to see. Indeed, if the issue is seat of the pants responses from people who should know better, perhaps the whole exercise speaks volumes about the condition of the enterprise in question. I am not a particularly prolific contributer to these forums, as evidenced by the number of posts versus length of membership, but I felt compelled to comment on the situation. There was nothing proprietary in the original missive that was deleted (and yes, you have the right to do it on your own site), but so far as I know, embarrassing yourself in public isn't a crime.
 
So basically, if you get a letter from Dave you have to take the "Butler" approach. As you all are aware, Princess Diana's butler, Paul Burrell, used snippets of her letters to write an entire novel. If you get a letter from Siegel use the same approach as not to offend the moderators. To their defense, it is copyright violation to publish an ENTIRE letter. Now that the letter is missing by CaptainA330, we know management reads this board. That's okay. We can snap the jockstraps in our own locker room, apparently the peni$es in management are a little sensitive in that area.
 
BillLumbergh said:
Third, it is a violation of copyright law to reproduce an electronic mail without consent of the sending party. Since I doubt that the author consented to the public dissemination of the letter, the posting of such was a violation of copyright rules.

Fourth, as a matter of nettiquette, it is highly discourteous to publish on a public forum a private e-mail message sent from one party to another without consenting to its public dissemination.
Can you provide some case law for the third point? Every single time I've read about someone trying to enforce the little "disclaimer signature" at the bottom of any email, they have been summarily spanked by the court in question, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

As for the netiquette violation, I'd suggest that a Harvard MBA CEO replying to a union member should be prepared to have his/her comments repeated in public, early and often.

It's your board, but I think you guys are really bending over for the airline on this one. Poor form, IMHO.
 
As much as these "moderators" give in to the corporation, I am VERY concerned that such things as private identities of the folks who post here are also transmitted to them. I, for one, will be very careful about this. By the way, I don't see how ANY letter, no matter how it is sent, would not be releaseable to the public by either party, even if it was marked for private individuals only. The only exception would be if it was agreed that the info was private BEFORE it was sent, not after. :down:
 
The letter was vintage Dave. On our ALPA board we've seen many such emails from Dave, and the smirking, self-righteous, disprespectful tone is all too familiar, as is his "If I had jetBlue's labor costs" mantra.

Funny, I bet Dave's not thinking about jetBlue this morning.
 
Folks, the mods are correct here. It is their sandbox.

Years ago a Supreme Court Justice said "I know when I see it". Yup, sometimes you can't exactly define it, but you do know a wrong when you see it.

Besides, aren't you US people tired of all the windup artists here? Geez.....