There's a difference between:
having a legal fight over who owns abc.com
and
deliberately misleading people and pretending to be/own abc.com

There can be abuses of either system, but rerouting traffic on the sly is potentially more dangerous to users than openly seizing a domain name.

"expectation of privacy" can have the legal meaning (whether others are prohibited from violating it) or the common sense meaning (whether it's likely that privacy will not be maintained). Also, whether or not there's an expectation of privacy, in each of your examples the law may well restrict what others are allowed to do. An example would be eavesdropping on some types of radio chatter not intended for you: it may not be encrypted, but it can also be illegal for others to listen in.

Why place email into strict "important" and "everything else" sets rather than just sorting the unread items in the regular inbox according to their weighting system? That would both save screen real estate and avoid problems of an important item being scored just under some threshold and relegated to the everything-else category. Normal rule definitions would be nice too: "Always flag email from '@foo.com' as important and label as 'work'".

The state of public domain means that no particular individual has more of a claim to use/exploit a work than others. To me (non-lawyer) it seems that picking an individual and assigning exclusive rights would break the definition.

Why would it be funny/unusual for the government to ask to see evidence if there's an allegation or confession of possible misconduct?

I understand your fear of a world in which any random jurisdiction might take legal exception to the acts of foreigners on the internet. What about the other side, though? Do you think that the statement "Bob's server has a high probability of being a spammer" should be treated differently under the law than "Bob has a high probability of not honoring the contract if you buy something from him" or "Bob cheats on his wife" in terms of Bob being able to challenge the assertion? There's also a problem with the delisting process: it seems to be an attempt to transfer responsibility for correctness from the author/publisher to the subject of the information being distributed, with the procedure for resolution being determined solely by the author/publisher. I'm not sure what the solution is, but are you concerned about the problems that a ruling in line with what Spamhaus and many of the posters here seem to desire would also generate?