| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | This page has been withdrawn from Conservapedia as part of a mass removal of content added by [[user:AmesG|Ames]] pursuant to a copyright challenge brought by the same user. The challenge rests on two grounds:
| + | {{discrimlaw}} |
| − | #Some content was added prior to the institution of Conservapedia's [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:General_disclaimer&oldid=82832 copyright policy] on 2 April 2007, and is now removed by the user's unencumbered and uncontroverted ability to control his own content in the absence of contract or waiver to the contrary.
| |
| − | #Some content, added after Conservapedia's copyright policy came into effect, is withdrawn under the below reasoning:
| |
| | | | |
| − | *If Ames supplied content gratuitously, he now revokes it.
| + | The '''intermediate scrutiny''' test in constitutional law is applied to statutes that affect quasi-suspect classifications such as making distinctions based on [[gender]]. This test requires invalidating a statute that discriminates based on gender unless the government can prove that the statute is substantially related to an important government purpose. |
| − | *Any waiver executed by the user would have been a contract; however, the professed disclaimer asserts that it is not a contract. Ergo, no waiver was made.
| + | |
| − | *If the waiver was a contract, it fails for lack of consideration. No exchange was contemplated or made between the parties; detriment was suffered by user in the loss of copyrighted privileges, time, and effort put into text, but no compensation was received in turn. If use of the site constitutes compensation, such use was already provided free of charge prior to copyright waiver, and even prior to contribution, and past consideration is no consideration.
| + | If the [[Equal Rights Amendment]] had passed, then the [[strict scrutiny]] test would be applied to all gender-related laws and rules, and that test is almost impossible to pass. |
| − | *If the waiver was a contract, it was procedurally unconscionable and voidable. User has no power under the agreement, and a simple contract of adhesion such as this one professes to be is voidable as a matter of public policy. As voidable, it is now void.
| + | [[Category:Law]] |
| − | *If the waiver was a contract, and use of the site was acceptance, the contract was breached by Conservapedia. Conservapedia, by virtue of holding out certain guidelines and "commandments," incorporates these commandments into the the contract. These "commandments" were breached with regard to users, as user's access to the site was terminated without cause (under the commandments) in May 2007. Prior to May 2007, user had not violated the commandments. Having been breached, waiver is inoperative.
| |
| − | *If the waiver was a contract, Conservapedia was unjustly enriched by avowadly valuable material.
| |