Re: Spamhaus Ignores U.S. Court?

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Network Nerd wrote:

> > > I'm not sure how women don't have equal protection under the law, but
> > > that's aside the point. In reality, when the USSC generally discusses
> > > companies as having "rights" they are or should be referring to the
> > > stock holders' rights - not the corporate entity's. Our political
> >
> > I have a feeling that under US law, a corporation is a legal "person", 
> > there was some railraod case that set this precedent.
>
>   You're thinking of the Buckley (William F's brother...) case, in which USSC 
> ruled that corporate "citizens", in spending money such as contributing to 
> political compaigns, are exercising their nearest analog to regular citizens' 
> First Amendment free speech rights, and are therefore entitled to that 
> amendment's protection.
 
No, I was thinking of Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, 
1886.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.