Legality question Re:posting an email

I had some correspondance with one of my Senators, Specter, and sent him an on-line form email questioning why Bush and this Admin. had not been dealt with accordingly by now, with impeachment and what have you. Those who know me, know it was certainly riddled with sarcastic criticism at the end

In response, I received a lengthy form letter response pretty much pertaining to the Iraq war. Certainly not satisfied with that response, I, in a possibly slightly induced state in one form or another, could not let that go without retort I just recieved a reply, which was listed in the Subject line as "Re:Impeachment" however, it is now completely onto the subject of Iran in this latest one, however he does give a bit of, 'we can do it with talks/diplomatically.' I told him his 1st lengthy form letter was out of date and responded with a barrage of links, again with the focus questioning why there has been no impeachments, and his office responded with this out of date trash re:Iran.

Now, I was a little concerned about my legality of printing email correspondance, without the other partys' knowledge, even it is fairly obviously a form letter response, and it is from a public official. I lean toward being 100% legal to do so, can someone verify this for me?

**And I might get to the 2nd one for response, as it sure is worthy, but if there are any other "bitter Pennsylvanians"## who wish to assume the task as well, start typing.

The other Senator is Casey and you'll have to track down your Congressman.

##There is no implication here connecting Sen. Specter and Sen. Obama

[edit on 4/18/2008 by RabbitChaser]

I'm not sure about the legality of posting such material, but I think a few members posted responses that they received from writing Congressmen and Senators without any problems.

[color=7e74ff]A letter from my congressman on UFOS!!!!!

[color=7e74ff]Asking Congress About the North American Union

I would like to see an official response, but I can't see anything wrong with it

I personally don't see anything wrong and can't find anything in the T&C except this:

1c.) Intellectual Property: You will not post any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, material previously posted by you on another website nor link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution, as defined by The Owners, to its original source.

Mind you I didn't look very hard

The only other thing I can think of is if the e-mail has a list of conditions attached saying what you may or may not do with it - a privacy statement or something similar.

Other than that I haven't got a clue

There's also the fact that we are talking about public figures here. I can't cite the source on this, but I think this is why the families of famous people are often "sheltered," because once they are a aprt of the public domain, their legal rights change in respect to the things they say and such.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Thank you for the input, jack... looks about the same as those links, in general

Can someone still give a definite on this... I'm busy right now posting some other news and will try to look for something myself later. I assume someone here may know for sure, any vultur... ahh... I mean lawyers here?

If I get no definite responses in a day or two, I'll probably put it up anyway.

If you need a definite, U2U a mod.

Look on the board list, see who's online and less likely to be swamped and send them a message.

They'll probably have to escalate it,
so I wouldn't expect an answer immediately

Busy people the mods

Originally posted by RabbitChaser
reply to post by jackinthebox

 

Thank you for the input, jack... looks about the same as those links, in general

Can someone still give a definite on this... I'm busy right now posting some other news and will try to look for something myself later. I assume someone here may know for sure, any vultur... ahh... I mean lawyers here?

If I get no definite responses in a day or two, I'll probably put it up anyway.

You do not have to be a lawyer to speak about communications between two parties being shared publicly by one party. If you corresponded with your 'representative' in that capacity - in other words - you write to a senator, congressman, mayor, etc. that's the only way they can respond. This means that communications between you two are not private unless the intent and purpose calling for privacy are clearly stated or implied within the communication itself.

If they happen to be a friend or acquaintance that can rightly presume the communication was of a private nature (and the contention can be challenged) then one or the other of the party has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the contents of that communication can only be compelled by court order.

HOWEVER - The T&C of this website and its operators and owners retain the right to restrict or qualify material to be posted and are within their rights to ask you not to post such things. Then you could do so elsewhere, subject to whoever is providing the 'virtual' space where you post.

Two schools of thought: a) If in doubt - don't post it. b) If you are compelled to share it - do so with full disclosure (the entire email chain if correspondence, caveats and provisos present in the email signature, etc. - i.e. no partial quotes)

I would go with a) unless its a form letter response.

reply to post by Maxmars


Alright, thanks Max I'll give it a couple days before I decide. They do appear to just be long form letters concerning these 2 topics, Iraq and Iran. I do not believe, however, that I have the original one that generated the Iraq one, as it was thru his online form (Hey look! Spell OIL... is that just a coincidence that those three letters are right together like that on your keyboard Off on another conspiracy theory tangent now... )

My response to that one, which included many links thru here if I recall correctly, clearly states my question regarding impeachment and the ousting of this entire Admin.... and then the "Iran" reply generated from that clearly states "Re:Impeachment" in the subject line... but is a spiel about Iran, covering up to about the Spring of 2008... oh... right... this is the Spring of 2008

That is why I say it also deserves a response. I think if I do it... I don't know... ya' never know what could happen if ya' keep pushin' And, seriously, I think I was probably pretty brutal. Actually, I have been hesitant to go back and look at what I wrote and linked because I almost don't want to know

[edit on 4/18/2008 by RabbitChaser]

reply to post by RabbitChaser



Ok. So its been a couple of days. What have you decided?

To post or not to post? That is the question.

CT

reply to post by Conspiracy Theorist


Yes... that is still the question.
I'm leaning toward posting. Note written to remind me. I'll be home at 8am EST where I will then have access to it.

I just sent him another email via his on-line form, on Sunday, which I forgot to copy before sending. It was a good one.
I again simply, but specifically, questioned about impeachment proceedings, several times, for this entire Administration and why the process isn't in full swing by now. I followed that by questioning if I would now recieve a lengthy form letter from his office regarding Pakistan... or perhaps Venezuela... or possibly China...?