<p>Chas et. al.</p>
<p>You wrote:</p>
<p>If you send me a message marked ""OFFLINE" or "OFFLIST," I will<br>normally courteously comply with your wishes. However, if you<br>threaten me with physical violence within that message, you have
<br>automatically vacated your right to privacy.</p>
<div>Bad behavior doesn't deserve any protection whatsoever. Of course, it<br>would still be civil and polite if it were granted, but it cannot<br>legitimately be claimed, outside of appealing to the benevolence of<br>the recipient.
<br>---------</div>
<div>In regards to posting private e-mail exhibiting "bad behavior" on Vision2020, even private "Off List" e-mail containing what appears to be a threat of physical violence, I disagree emphatically with your assessment, for two reasons: one, the so called "threat" may be nothing more than blowing off steam, which many of us do from time to time in a private context expecting the private communication to remain private; and two, more importantly: posting the "threat" to the list may hamper law enforcement efforts to stop the carrying out of a substantive threat.
</div>
<p>Allow me to expand on these points, if you will:</p>
<p>Every day of the week people who treat each other with respect for privacy do offer "bad behavior" some measure of "protection." The ethical principles involved in respecting someones privacy, and not attempting to embarrass or damage someone by exposing "bad behavior" to public scrutiny, are loosely understood by most people, I think.
</p>
<p>The point of private discussion, sometimes, is that emotions and thoughts that are not appropriate for public display can be expressed privately, and the parties involved understand that statements made in this context ("blowing off steam") are not meant to be made public, and that making them public is a serious breach of trust. This, of course, is not necessarily a legal interpretation that is enforced by law, but the rules of Vision2020 conduct, such as they are, are not enforced by any law usually anyway.
</p>
<p>If a Vision2020 list member sends me a private "Off List" e-mail with graphic pornographic profanity, this "bad behavior," in my opinion, does warrant "protection," insofar as it is assumed this private e-mail will not be forwarded to the list, and that the person who sent the private e-mail was just blowing off steam, in a private context. I am sure that most list members do not want private e-mail of this sort to be posted to the list.
</p>
<p>I respect others needs to "blow off steam" and not have the outburst made public, and this is a matter of personal respect and honor between two people. In fact, violating the trust involved in private communications can result in an unfortunate escalation of bad feelings, leading to more serious consequences. I have attempted to religiously honor this approach on Vision2020, despite any impulses to post private "Off List" e-mail to the list when the private e-mail exhibited "bad behavior."
</p>
<p>I do not regard this as a trivial issue for maintaining a healthy list serve environment.</p>
<p>Consider the silly juvenile spats that have repeatedly been posted to Vision2020 between Donovan Arnold and Tom Hansen. These tit for tat personalized back and forth outbursts are "bad behavior" which should be kept private, don't you agree, despite the fact that threats were made (no, I won't post the evidence to the list)?
</p>
<p>If a Vision2020 list member privately sends me a e-mail with a "threat," my first response, assuming I take the threat with any degree of seriousness, might be to respond privately to the person who made the threat, to determine whether this was just "blowing off steam," or whether there was something more substantive intended, or as discretely as possible, to communicate privately with others who are well acquainted with the person who made the threat, to determine the seriousness of the threat.
</p>
<p>If I determine the threat was substantive, taking the issue to Vision2020 is very unwise, in my opinion, and not just because of issues of honoring the privacy of private communication, or concerns about the health of Vision2020:
</p>
<p>Vision2020 is not a law enforcement organization, nor is it a venue for seeking substantive protection from threats. My next step when determining I seriously feel threatened via a private e-mail would be to contact law enforcement privately and/or contact others privately who may be able to help, as discretely as possible.
</p>
<p>Placing a privately made e-mail threat on Vision2020 might hamper the efforts of law enforcement to investigate the threat (or, in legal terms, the "assault") and prevent an actual physical attack, insofar as it might inspire the person who made the "assault" to engage in more stealthy behavior to evade law enforcement, to enable them to actually carry out the threat. Law enforcement would much rather, I assume, in most cases, keep the fact that a threat of physical violence was made privately in a e-mail, out of public forums, to maintain as much of an element of secrecy in their attempts to investigate or stop a substantive threat, assuming law enforcement regarded the threat seriously.
</p>
<p>To place this principle in another law enforcement context, if a Vision2020 list member received a private e-mail from another list serve member, or from anyone, that they had a meth lab in full production, would law enforcement want this private e-mail posted to Vision2020, potentially hampering their investigations or law enforcement actions?
</p>
<p>Ted Moffett</p>