It doesn't seem to me to be a question of permission, the list has been
billed as a public forum much like the editorial pages of the Daily News.
I don't recall that we have ever asked the Daily News for permission to
quote or discuss anything that they have ever printed. This discussion
goes both ways. In other words, lets not undersell the listserver as a
news medium.
Given the thoroughness of reporting that has gone on in this listserver to
date, perhaps this format will someday obviate the need for a newspaper.
It is already the case that if I want to find out what happened at a County
or City level meeting I check my email *before* looking for a local paper.
On the privacy side: I think it is safe to remember how easy it is to hit
the forward command on our computers. Every comment, thought or typo we
send from our homes can be forwarded anywhere in the world, instantly.
This electronic "neep nurp" can have the permanence of the written word. (I
just wish my shareware mail handler had a spell checker.)
Tom
On some recent day, Susan Palmer pondered and then enscribed in electrons:
>Particularly because the paper reported that Greg's comments
>were taken from "written comments to the commission," I think that
>Greg Burton or anyone else lurking from the Daily News should
>respond with their perception of the journalism and reporting etiquette
>regarding lists like this. Although I, too, agree that we are in
>the public realm here, permission to quote from written material
>is generally the appropriate policy for most folks.
>
>Fritz should monitor the paper for the next several days for the
>story his apparent faux pas generates.
>
>Best,
>Susan Palmer
>
>
>On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Bill London wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain how Greg's comments were given to the daily news?
>> I am trying to understand this new medium of exchange we are
>> using. Is this a party-line conversation, open to the 50 or so
>> subscribers, or is this a public forum where we all are making public
>> comments ready for use in news accounts?
>> Greg was commenting upon a public document in a way that could be
>> construed as public comment, but I really don't see his posting as that.
>> To me, these messages are not for public dissemination. I would have
>> restrained myself from my usual mumbling had I known it could appear in
>> print.
>> I hope someone explains how this occurred, and what the rules are
>> here, and what I can expect in the future. BL
>>