Why is there so much stupid today?
Mar. 17th, 2007 01:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gizaI am specifically referring to Suzanne Shell of Elbert, Colorado. Suzanne sued the Internet Archive for daring to crawl her site:
Yes, you read that right. This lady couldn't be bothered to actually create a robots.txt file for her site. Yes, really. I just checked: http://www.profane-justice.org/robots.txt is 404. That's all she needed to do.
Me thinks she's more interested in starting drama and playing up how she's really the victim than actually resolving the situation.
Slashdot has coverage of this, too. It turns out that she has a bit of a criminal record, herself:
And this little gem:
I could go on about her, but the Beyond Contempt article does it better than I could have. Down at pages 4 and 5, it goes into lots of interesting details about court cases she's meddled in. What a psycho.
And finally, something funny. Someone made a video about RegisterFly callled: Failure to Communicate. More details about RegisterFly's accreditation being terminated can be found on Slashdot. Enjoy!
Computers can enter into contracts on behalf of people. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) says that a "contract may be formed by the interaction of electronic agents of the parties, even if no individual was aware of or reviewed the electronic agents' actions or the resulting terms and agreements."
This presumes a prior agreement to do business electronically.
So what constitutes such an agreement? The Internet Archive, which spiders the Internet to copy Web sites for posterity (unless site owners opt out), is being sued by Colorado resident and Web site owner Suzanne Shell for conversion, civil theft, breach of contract, and violations of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations act and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act.
Shell's site states, "IF YOU COPY OR DISTRIBUTE ANYTHING ON THIS WEB SITE, YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT," at the bottom of the main page, and refers readers to a more detailed copyright notice and agreement. Her suit asserts that the Internet Archive's programmatic visitation of her site constitutes acceptance of her terms, despite the obvious inability of a Web crawler to understand those terms and the absence of a robots.txt file to warn crawlers away.
This presumes a prior agreement to do business electronically.
So what constitutes such an agreement? The Internet Archive, which spiders the Internet to copy Web sites for posterity (unless site owners opt out), is being sued by Colorado resident and Web site owner Suzanne Shell for conversion, civil theft, breach of contract, and violations of the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations act and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act.
Shell's site states, "IF YOU COPY OR DISTRIBUTE ANYTHING ON THIS WEB SITE, YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT," at the bottom of the main page, and refers readers to a more detailed copyright notice and agreement. Her suit asserts that the Internet Archive's programmatic visitation of her site constitutes acceptance of her terms, despite the obvious inability of a Web crawler to understand those terms and the absence of a robots.txt file to warn crawlers away.
Yes, you read that right. This lady couldn't be bothered to actually create a robots.txt file for her site. Yes, really. I just checked: http://www.profane-justice.org/robots.txt is 404. That's all she needed to do.
Me thinks she's more interested in starting drama and playing up how she's really the victim than actually resolving the situation.
Slashdot has coverage of this, too. It turns out that she has a bit of a criminal record, herself:
She's been ejected from courtrooms by judges and attacked in a hallway by a convicted child molester she was trying to capture on film. She's been arrested in Wisconsin for refusing to turn over her video equipment to a police officer and detained at the Colorado Springs Airport because she forgot to remove a .380-caliber pistol from her carry-on items. The mere presence of Shell and her camera put a halt to a Colorado legislative hearing on a family-rights bill a couple of years ago.
And this little gem:
Lawyers who've gone up against Shell say she can hurt, rather than help, her own clients. "Suzanne's involvement helps me," notes Rocco Meconi, a Cañon City attorney who represents the Fremont County Department of Human Services in D&N cases. "I get paid on an hourly basis. When she's involved, we always have contested hearings, and I make a ton of money. But it doesn't help the families or the kids."
Shell's fights in Fremont County have led to a more prolonged tour of the state's justice system than she bargained for. Four years ago, after complaints from Meconi and other county officials, the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel launched an investigation of Shell for allegedly practicing law without a license. The case was settled with Shell signing a stipulation, in which she admitted providing legal advice to parents and drafting legal documents for them and agreed not to do so in the future. But her subsequent tussles with what she calls the "child savers" in the county -- in particular, her involvement in two D&N cases in which questions have been raised about the mental capacity of the mothers who enlisted Shell's help -- landed her in deeper trouble.
In March 2004, the Supreme Court cited Shell for contempt of court, alleging that she'd ignored the court's 2001 order to stop unauthorized lawyering. Last month she presented her defense before presiding disciplinary judge William Lucero, who's expected to make a recommendation on the case to the state's highest judges in a few weeks. If she's found guilty, Shell could face thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail time.
Shell's fights in Fremont County have led to a more prolonged tour of the state's justice system than she bargained for. Four years ago, after complaints from Meconi and other county officials, the Colorado Supreme Court's Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel launched an investigation of Shell for allegedly practicing law without a license. The case was settled with Shell signing a stipulation, in which she admitted providing legal advice to parents and drafting legal documents for them and agreed not to do so in the future. But her subsequent tussles with what she calls the "child savers" in the county -- in particular, her involvement in two D&N cases in which questions have been raised about the mental capacity of the mothers who enlisted Shell's help -- landed her in deeper trouble.
In March 2004, the Supreme Court cited Shell for contempt of court, alleging that she'd ignored the court's 2001 order to stop unauthorized lawyering. Last month she presented her defense before presiding disciplinary judge William Lucero, who's expected to make a recommendation on the case to the state's highest judges in a few weeks. If she's found guilty, Shell could face thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail time.
I could go on about her, but the Beyond Contempt article does it better than I could have. Down at pages 4 and 5, it goes into lots of interesting details about court cases she's meddled in. What a psycho.
And finally, something funny. Someone made a video about RegisterFly callled: Failure to Communicate. More details about RegisterFly's accreditation being terminated can be found on Slashdot. Enjoy!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-18 06:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-18 07:17 am (UTC)There was a good bit on NPR's On The Media about Google/YouTube and Viacom that mentioned the DMCA. (It also had several media experts pointing out that letting stuff get onto YouTube is good business.)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-19 03:16 pm (UTC)another site to gosp about