OT: Spamhaus petition rejected - followup from previous discussion

[Richard Frovarp]

Res wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Michael Masse wrote:
>
>> http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39163463,00.htm
>
> typical yanks, why is it they think the rest of the world is subject 
> to their courts jurisdiction. one day they'll wake up and smell the 
> coffee, they are not earths governing body despite what they think :)
Because Spamhaus said so! They told the state court they have no 
jurisdiction. They asked for the case to be moved to the federal court. 
Then they decided that the federal court didn't have jurisdiction, and 
didn't show up. If you don't show up for your case, you lose. I think 
that is pretty standard around the world. Read this:

http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/664

>
>
>> I'm certainly no lawyer, but how could there even be a hint of a case
>> for something like this?
>
> In Australia, and I'm sure in other countries, SH have the law BEHIND 
> them, not awarding low life scummy trash privacy invaders damages.
>
>
I would check out Dow Jones & Co. Inc v Gutnick. This case didn't go all 
the way to judgment, but the High Court of Australia decided unanimously 
that content on US servers could count as defamation in Australia. Dow 
Jones eventually settled after failing to get the case dismissed due to 
jurisdictional issues. It would be interesting to see a similar case go 
to the US Supreme Court.