Aggressive language on python-list

[Dwight Hutto]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dwight Hutto <dwightdhutto at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM, wu wei <wuwei23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Did you really forward a private email to a public mailing list without
>>> permission?
>>>
>>> Are you really that fucking ignorant of the law?
>>
>> This is a public discussion. Maybe you just need to stand behind a
>> loophole in the law, but the first amendment overrides that.
>
> Common misconception. The First Amendment to the United States
> Constitution prohibits the *making of any law* that restricts certain
> freedoms. It does not have ANYTHING to do with "I have first amendment
> rights to say whatever I like".

Your constitutional opinion, but not everyone's.

And I quote:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or -->abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press<--; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



 It is restrictions on Congress and the
> state governments in the US of A.
>
> Even if python-list were purely US-based, it still wouldn't apply.
>
> Deliberately forwarding a private email without permission is a breach
> of courtesy, more than of the law.

How many emails end in hit 'reply all'?


It may be possible to make a civil
> case of the breach of privacy in some jurisdictions, but mainly it's
> just a gross discourtesy.

It wasn't stated that that was their intent. I though it was the
regular hit 'reply', instead of hit 'reply all'

 (Assuming, that is, that the email wasn't
> actually intended to be public. I've at times responded on-list to a
> private email, but with a tag at the top explaining that.)
>

That I failed to do. To say please hit 'reply all'

-- 
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com