We find Ms. Hunter's response disturbing both in tone and substance.

1. Ms. Hunter accuses Ms. Brooks of "spamming".  This seems to be a very strange reaction. Ms. Brook's one-time email on a significant news story hardly seems to merit the label "spamming".  Why is Ms. Hunter being so virulent in her reaction?  Ms. Brooks was following your editorial policy, which solicits "potential news stories".  Ironically Ms Hunter's email was sent to a group email list and hence could be contrued as spamming.

If Ms. Hunter for some legitimate reason does not wish to receive information on this important topic, then a polite request to Ms. Brooks to be taken off the latter's email list would have been the appropriate response, not a threat of legal action.
 

2. Ms. Hunter characterizes Ms. Brooks' press release as being "commercial, non-commercial, bulk, or junk electronic mail ("SPAM")".  We find it very puzzling that one of your employees would label an editorial viewpoint as being "junk mail". What is Ms. Hunter's position at the Chronicle?  Does she have editorial authority or is her function solely clerical?
 

3. We are also very surprised at the tone of Ms. Hunter's response because of the substance of Ms. Brook's email. Behind the particular facts of Ms. Brook's email is a great national story which has not yet found its way into the national press.

All across the country, from California to Texas to Florida to New York and everywhere in between, homeowners are fighting to preserve their homes from the predations of CAI members, especially its lawyers.

We would presume that a newspaper which is inspired by the above quote from its founder, Jesse Jones, would be championing a cause so critical to the life of millions of homeowners, not characterizing it as "spam". We find this especially disturbing coming from the Chronicle.

4. While you may or may not agree with Ms. Brookes' viewpoint, it is cause for very serious concern when a supposedly reputable publication threatens legal action against the  author of a press release and considers it junk mail.  Freedom of the press is surely endangered when the very press itself seeks to suppress freedom of expression by threatening law suits.
 
Hence,  we hope that, in light of the above, you will look into what Ms. Hunter did, and assure us that this was a mistake or aberration. If we in the press are not constantly vigilant about protecting press freedom, we will be the first ones to suffer.

 
Sincerely,
 
AHRC News Services