Re: Spamhaus Ignores U.S. Court?

["Dude VanWinkle" <dudevanwinkle () gmail com>]

On 9/18/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Dude VanWinkle wrote:
>
> > On 9/18/06, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> 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.
> >
> > Yep, they have most of the rights of a person, but no body with which
> > to put in jail when they break the law :-(
>
> Yes, that's a drawback. But if a corporation breaks the law, surely at
> least one of the corporate officers has broken the law?

There may be a hefty fine for the company to pay, their stock may even
drop. But before the Enron/Tyco/Worldcom triple header, I had never
seen a top level executive in an american company go to prison, even
though they steal millions of dollars (Have any since? Seriously, I
just stopped caring at that point, and dont know if any were put in
prison).

Getting back to the thread though: Vixie said:


"last but not least, i want steve linford to be welcome at NANOG and IETF
meetings held in the US (and even those held in indiana, if ever.)  having
him taken from the airport in handcuffs would be a real buzz-killer for me."

Is that a possibility? Did Spamhaus break the law by not being in the
courts jurisdiction?


-JP
_______________________________________________
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.