Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:10:13 -0500 (EST)
What springs to mind in the drama currently before the board of E-Ethics,
is the old joke about Lizzie Borden who took an axe to both her parents
and at her trial whined to the judge to "pity a poor orphan." The perp, a
fella given to hate mail offlist (as I will testify, your honor), is
miffed at the breach of "netiquette" in sending it to the List.
Really ! He could give Lizzie a lesson...
Another analogy that comes to mind is to the "confidentiality" expected of
doctors and priests. A doctor has been successfully sued for *not*
breaching confidentiality when he knew that others were at risk. And
doctors and psychiatrists have breached the "confidence" when they knew or
sensed they *themselves* were at risk -- and were expected to do so.
Also, a propos of offlist hate mail, I recall last spring when the mail
came from a different source, Katherine Rogers said quite emphatically she
would send any further assaults right back to the list. I thought that was
absolutely correct.
To hold the victim of hate mail to the standards of civil e-exchange is
unreasonable -- rather it eggs on the bullies and cowards, by guaranteeing
them free shots. What else can you do in self defense besides send your
goons out to get' em? SO much more civilized, really, to simply press the
forward button, wouldn't you say?
It does occur to me to ask the folks decrying Jewelia's act of
self-defense, if they have themselves ever ever ever received a letter of
that character. I read it to one local authority. He's seen and heard a
lot of vented spleen. That rated pretty high.
Hang in Jewelia. And permit me to suggest a new list rule: A hate letter
is hors de "netiquette." The sender has already left civilized discourse.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:56