ON THE NET
Reply to All
A lesson in e-manners for my Bush-hating cousin.
BY ALAN BROMLEY
Friday, January 23, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004590
My cousin, whom I'll call "Bob," just included me in a group e-mail that implied President Bush was anti-Semitic because he hadn't appointed a Jew to his cabinet. The e-mail, which went out to some 50 people in my cousin's address book, said that every president in the past hundred years or so had indeed selected at least one Jew to be in his cabinet.
I was incensed, and my first reaction was to press "Delete" and erase the offending message. After doing so, I reflected a bit more and decided that my silence might imply that I agreed, so I went to an earlier mass e-mail from Bob and pressed "Reply to All." My trigger finger has now caused a family furor.
My initial message to Bob--and everyone in his address book--stated that before we malign President Bush as an anti-Semite, we should note that FDR turned his back on Jewish refugees during World War II, just as he did on the Holocaust itself; that President Carter engineered a "peace accord" that was quite disadvantageous to Israel; that President Clinton resurrected Yasser Arafat from the politically dead (and that Hillary Clinton publicly kissed Arafat's wife after Mrs. Arafat accused Jews of poisoning Arab children), and that virtually every Jewish organization has labeled President Bush the most pro-Israeli American president in memory.
When I opened my e-mail Monday morning, I was hit with a reply that made me wonder: Exactly what are the legalities, and what is the prevailing etiquette of "replying to all"?
Bob's view--and I might be breaking all rules of etiquette by quoting this--was quite clear:
Proper e-mail etiquette does not include the use of other people's personal address books to further one's political, personal objectives, or opinions, and is very offensive. Especially when all their opinions and objectives are totally wrong and inconsistent with public sentiment!!...FYI, AOL calls it spam and you know the United States Government is prosecuting spammers!!!
So there it was! Could he form a group, gratuitously include me, send out political messages of his own liking, and then try to shame me from replying by bringing up some newfangled Internet etiquette? And, then could he, armed with the benefit of law, threaten to prosecute me for expressing to the group into which he had thrown me a political view divergent from his?
I did a little research. One lawyer said my replying, regardless of content, was clearly within my First Amendment right to freedom of speech, even though he was unsure of the etiquette. (You can't call too many lawyers for free input, as they like to talk for seven minutes, their minimum billing time!)
I then went to workers in their 20s and 30s, who are frequent and fluent e-mail users. They all said they don't reply to the entire group, but out of self-preservation: they don't want to be bombarded with return e-mails from the group. I turned to my 17-year-old daughter and a couple of her friends, and they said they respond to the entire group all the time.
So perhaps it's time for someone (me) to set up the "rules of etiquette" for e-mail:
• Don't share your address book if you don't want group replies.
• Inform the recipients if you will accept only replies with which you agree.
• Inquire about other people's political views before you fill their e-mailboxes with yours.
• Keep family and politics separate!
And finally, a note to my cousin: Sorry "Bob," I didn't mean to offend you, but you've known me long enough to know that I rarely keep my views to myself. Hope the wife and kids are well. |
