Re: Spamhaus Ignores U.S. Court?

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

> 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.

> systems is not "based" on money either, it seems that way and often
> works as if it were, but it isn't. Unfortunately *WE* don't appear to
> be disgusted enough to change the way it looks...yet.
>
> Finally, any "commercial free speech" there may be would have to
> protect spamhaus customers equally - meaning they have the right to
> enlist the services of spamhaus. I have the ability to block
> television stations using a government required chip in my TV, and I
> have the ability to hire someone to filter my e-mail. Spamhaus has the
> right to say so-and-so is a spammer and if they believe they're being
> libeled they have the right to sue. That's how this system works.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

_______________________________________________
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.