Wow.Â Please, please. Quiet down out there. Just because I let C. Bruce Willis have the last word does notÂ mean that I was acquiescing to him. I was merely being polite.Â Perhaps that is such rare behavior on my part thatÂ I was misapprehended. So, to satisfy all youÂ journalism- and law-practicing FrontBurnervians who have written in outrage at Mr. Willis’s arguments, here are your rebuttals (necessarily consolidated):
(1) The property was not public property.Â The area was private property and owned by Business Jet by our hanger.
AllÂ Fixed Base OperatorsÂ at Love Field lease their space from the City of Dallas. As it happens, Business Jet gave permission for the photograph. However, we were perfectly within our rights in any case. Under this theory, if a television station were to do a flyover at the airport for a story they could not show airplanes on the ground.
(2) You guys came out to take photos of certain planes with no tail numbers. You did not take photos of the planes allowed but of our plane. Regulations do not allow photos of the tail numbers to be taken.
The first sentence is true. However,Â to clarify what is evident from the photograph itself, Aircorp’s plane was in the background of the scene photographed; it was not the subject of the photograph.
To the second point, there is not now, nor has ever been any regulation, rule, law, or administrative ruling forbiding photography showing tail codes (not “tail numbers,” btw).Â Mr. Willis seems to have invented this out of whole cloth. The tail code, in fact, is public information (here , on FAA’s website).
(3) We do not want Aircorp mentioned in the public whatsoever.Â Your assertion was false.
Sorry, this is very confusing. Why did you start this whole thing?
(4) Your post online could be constituted as defamation.
Under what statute? In what country?
(5) On the bottom of the email sent to the editor, the signature specifically says that the email message is privileged and confidential information intended for the recipient.
Let’s hand this one directly overÂ to a fewÂ of our law-practicing FrontBurnervians:
“26 years of practicing law, and I had no idea that all you needed to do to make a communication privileged was to put a footer at the bottom of the page.”
“In Texas, two parties must agree before a condition of confidentiality exists between them.”
“That is boilerplate legalese that is intended to protect the sender in case the email, or fax, is sent to the incorrect address or is intercepted. As you were the intended recipient, you are free to publish the email.Â (If I were an unemployed corporate attorney I’d be emailing my resume to the CEO of Aircorp.)”