Bay Area Cat wrote:No, it would not be a violation of privacy laws (Constitutional or otherwise), so please stop trying to pretend like you know anything about the law (what an AWESOME bluff that way
). Every legal accusation you've ever made has been outright stupid.
Here are the facts, dumbass. You sent us emails from your USC account (gee, looky here, you were a PhD student at USC, so says Mr. Google and Mr. LinkedIn) and nobody except you could have gotten that account. It had your name on it. You know about it (by your own admission ... nobody mentioned USC until you did ... dumbass). It was you that sent them. But hey, we can dig up the IP addresses to further prove they came from you if you want to take us to court over it (seeing as how you are such the brilliant legal mind).
In those emails you made threats of lawsuits against MSU that were (incredibly) even stupider than your "privacy" argument above. You did do that, so please stop lying about it. You also insulted all of us over and over again. You came off like you were one unstable guy who no program would want to deal with.
We chose to let all of that go (including your insults of us, which you now strangely are doing again) out of respect and concern for your son. We can post anything we want (or we could forward them to whoever we want to) ... but we chose not to, and we have no interest in doing so ... despite the fact that you're a dick.
Stop being a dick, for your son's sake. It's rather pathetic that we seem to care more about protecting your son's reputation than you do.
Once and for all, anyone can use anyone else's e-mail account. You would have to be a meteoric dumbass not to come to grips with that, especially if you live in the Bay Area.
No matter what you do, it isn't going to affect anyone's kid. You have zero connection to collegiate coaches and any of their decisions.
To reiterate, the JUCO punter's old man does not interfere with his son's success in any way. He merely nurtures it from afar. The first thing his outside of JUCO kicking coaching staff asked is, "where is your dad?" when they noticed he wasn't at his first game.
Carlito is still a Ph.D. student. On a LOA.
Here is your legal lesson:
The practice of email forwarding deprives email senders of privacy. Expression meant for only a specific recipient often finds its way into myriad inboxes or onto a public website, exposed for all to see. Simply by clicking the "forward" button, email recipients routinely strip email senders of expressive privacy. The common law condemns such conduct. Beginning over two-hundred-fifty years ago, courts recognized that authors of personal correspondence hold property rights in their expression. Under common-law copyright, authors held a right to control whether their correspondence was published to third parties. This common-law protection of private expression was nearly absolute, immune from any defense of "fair use." Accordingly, the routine practice of email forwarding would violate principles of common-law copyright.
The issue of whether common-law copyright today protects email expression turns on whether the Federal Copyright Act preempts common-law copyright. The Copyright Act includes a fair-use defense to infringing uses of unpublished works, and that defense likely applies to email forwarding. A strong argument exists, however, that the Act does not preempt common-law rights of expression which protect privacy. Federal preemption extends only as far as the Constitution permits. According to the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, federal property rights in expression are limited to rights that forward a utilitarian end. Rights of privacy do not forward a utilitarian end. The Act should therefore be construed as not preempting common-law copyright's protection of privacy. Email forwarding must yield to privacy protection.
