RiverDog wrote:fenderbender123 wrote:Read the last sentence. Ethics are ethics. I'm not talking about whether a server is private or whether or not somebody has the legal right to share an email. I am talking about being ethical which has nothing to do with the law.
For example, let's say my girlfriend writes me a letter and mails it to me. I have the right to open that letter, take a picture of it, and post it on Reddit. But would I do that? Hell no. Even if it was the most offensive letter in the world, me posting it online to try and embarrass and ruin her life would be an absolutely piece of $h!t move by me. I'm not a piece of $h!t, so I wouldn't do it. I was taught better than that.
OK, fair enough. The person that leaked the email was unethical. So were the reporters that broke the Watergate story. It's standard operating procedure in the news business. They're all a bunch of sleaze balls.
Besides, it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make: That emails sent to or received on a company domain are the property of that company. It doesn't matter if they were written under the assumption that they would only be read by the recipient.
I don't agree with what Gruden said in his emails... That being said, why is it he doesn't have the right to his opinion?
I think this is setting a dangerous precedent.. the emails were not meant for public disclosure whether or not the emails were on public domain or not... Grudens emails were from his private email so he might have thought they were private... Maybe there is a whole story behind Grudens comments that were not discussed in the email. We don't know its one piece...
the bigger picture here is why can't people think what they want to think? Its appropriate to educate people into understanding why different ideologies might be destructive but is it appropriate to control what people think through a societal opinion of what's appropriate?
Since when are people not allowed to speak what they feel is true no matter if society thinks it right or not?
Look what happened to Collin Kaepernick? So its not ok to take a knee in protest over racism because if you do that you are black listed in the NFL but If you write an email years ago that is considered racism you get canned for that too? (yeah he didn't persay get canned but thats why he quit because that's where it would have gone after the media drug Gruden through the mud) Who are we catering to? It's not like the NFL is apologizing to CK .. nobody will touch this guy with a 50 ft pole...
The whole thing IMO is not very well thought out.. it's really reactionary in nature.. I think what's happening is bring up questions on the definition of "free speech" regardless if the NFL is a private company or not its still bring the question... What kind of free speech is appropriate to our society and when?