Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:44:25 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <15331.5049.557178.962643@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011102132958.051040c0@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011101223208.00b3ec20@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011101190545.03ed6330@localhost> <20011101164226.B47017@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.2.20011102132958.051040c0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> types: > At 11:27 PM 11/1/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > >The ADA actually applies to "physical places of public > >accomodation". In Hooks vs. OKBridge, the US District Court for the > >Western District of Texas ruled that the ADA doesn't apply to a web > >site because a web site isn't a "physical place". On appeal, the Fifth > >Circuit ducked the issue by ruling that OKBridge hadn't violated the > >ADA for reason unrelated to whether or not the ADA applied to the web > >site. Details at <URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/aprsep00.htm >. > > Sorry, Mike, but that case is unrelated. The person in question had > bipolar disorder, not an inability to read the screen. The DOJ > has ruled that the ADA does require Web pages to be accessible via > text-based browsers. Local governments have also imposed similar > requirements. see > > http://www.rit.edu/~easi/law/weblaw1.htm Whether the person in question had bipoloar disorder or an inability to read the screen is immaterial. What that case gives you is a precedent - which has *not* been overturned by a superior court - that a commercial web site is not covered by the ADA as it is not a physical place. If you read the paper you cited carefully, you'll find that it requires "covered entities" to provide web sites accessible to the disabled, and that Titles II and III make state and local governments - and any organizations they or the feds fund - "covered entities". All of which I've publicly stated before. If you go back and read the DOJ document I cited, specifically the paragraph titled "Fifth Circuit Avoids Ruling on Internet Coverage", you'll find that the Department of Justice thinks there is no precedent for the ADA applying to commercial web sites. While the DOJ clearly feels that commercial web sites should be covered, as they filed a brief with the fifth circuit court to that effect, and I agree with them, the best legal precedent they have says otherwise. As always, I'm interested in any precedent that would supercede the ones cited by the DOJ. Without that, all you're doing is wishing that the ADA applied. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15331.5049.557178.962643>