From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Nov 2 15: 2: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (okc-65-31-203-60.mmcable.com [65.31.203.60]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7310437B417 for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:01:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 66825 invoked by uid 100); 2 Nov 2001 23:01:43 -0000 From: Mike Meyer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15331.9687.734603.325845@guru.mired.org> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 17:01:43 -0600 To: advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NatWest? no thanks In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011102153937.0434b8a0@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011102132958.051040c0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011101223208.00b3ec20@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20011101190545.03ed6330@localhost> <20011101164226.B47017@jake.akitanet.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.2.20011102153937.0434b8a0@localhost> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Brett Glass types: > At 02:44 PM 11/2/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: > >Whether the person in question had bipoloar disorder or an inability > >to read the screen is immaterial. > Not at all. It is quite important. Your saying it's important doesn't make it so. Try providing reasons when you make such statements. > Also, remember that the ruling in that case claimed that the owner > of the site was running a "private club." Clearly, this is not > the case for MSN, which is a public accommodation and which Windows > users are COMPELLED to access for product activation. So, the > ruling was very narrow indeed. And it only applies in one judicial > circuit. Yup, the court ruled that the place was a private club as well as that it wasn't a physical place. Further, the Fifth Circuit court ruled that OKBridge didn't violate the ADA because they weren't aware of the alleged disability at the time. And yes, the ruling in question only applies in one judicial circuit, but it can still be considered as precedent in other circuits. Sure, it's a remarkably flimsy precedent - but it's *still* better than any precedent you've quoted or I've been able to find to defend the position that the ADA applies to commercial web sites. Again, if you've got a better precedent, lets hear it, not just you stating what you wish were true yet again. 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-chat" in the body of the message