|
|
| 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| − | This page has been withdrawn from Conservapedia as part of a mass removal of content added by [[user:AmesG|Ames]] pursuant to a copyright challenge brought by the same user.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}}'''Strict Scrutiny''' is a form of constitutional review that is used to determine the validity of [[legislation]] that discriminates on the basis of suspect categories, such as [[race]]. Under Strict Scrutiny review, a statute can be found valid if the statute is narrowly tailored to an important governmental objective.<ref>''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'', 338 U.S. 1</ref> It has been said that strict scrutiny is strict in theory, but fatal in fact. |
| − | #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| − | #Some content, added after Conservapedia's copyright policy came into effect, is withdrawn under the below reasoning: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.
| + | Currently, the only "suspect classifications" to which strict scrutiny applies are race,<ref>''Brown v. Board of Education''</ref> [[religion]],<ref>''Yick Wo v. Hopkins'' (118 U.S. 356)</ref> and [[national origin]] <ref>''Korematsu v. U.S.'' (323 U.S. 214) </ref>. Sexual orientation has been given a quasi-suspect classification.<ref>''Romer v. Evans'', see also ''Lawrence v. Texas''</ref> |
| − | *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.
| + | == Reference == |
| − | *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.
| + | <references/> |
| − | *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.
| + | |
Revision as of 22:00, October 5, 2007
Strict Scrutiny is a form of constitutional review that is used to determine the validity of
legislation that discriminates on the basis of suspect categories, such as
race. Under Strict Scrutiny review, a statute can be found valid if the statute is narrowly tailored to an important governmental objective.
[1] It has been said that strict scrutiny is strict in theory, but fatal in fact.
Currently, the only "suspect classifications" to which strict scrutiny applies are race,[2] religion,[3] and national origin [4]. Sexual orientation has been given a quasi-suspect classification.[5]
Reference
- ↑ Loving v. Virginia, 338 U.S. 1
- ↑ Brown v. Board of Education
- ↑ Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356)
- ↑ Korematsu v. U.S. (323 U.S. 214)
- ↑ Romer v. Evans, see also Lawrence v. Texas
