It is probably sufficient for present purposes to point out that the
situation is not nearly as simple as you suggest.
OK you go ahead and try it and if you are right you don't
go to jail.
I think the point is made closely enough to justify calling
this type of behavior 'extortion'. Particularly if you
want to use the 'didn't know' defense:-
In offences related to
larceny (which includes extortion other than perhaps
extortion in public
office), there is a particular defence of "claim of right",
and in this
case, you can even be mistaken about the law as long as you
believed you
had a legal right to what you are claiming. No doubt this
defence could be
argued.
In the UK the favorite dictum the courts like to repeat is
that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. I think you are
incorrect here as to the claim of right applicability,
that would be if you thought you owned the good in question.
It is unlikely this defense would be available if a letter
was sent stating that 1) the listing is disagreed with on
[specified] grounds and 2) any demands for payment for
de-listing will be considered to be extortion demands.
OK so you could claim you didn't believe the notice but
the twinkie defense is about as likely to work.
Phill
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg