Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 17:07:23 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20011103170327.051b5f00@localhost> In-Reply-To: <15331.9687.734603.325845@guru.mired.org> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011102153937.0434b8a0@localhost> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 04:01 PM 11/2/2001, Mike Meyer wrote: >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. Sorry, but by the time one gets to court over such things one has ALREADY lost due to the great expense of such suits. The DoJ simply demands that things get fixed, and the parties comply because it's the right thing to do and the DoJ's interpretation makes sense. One barely related case isn't even worth citing as a defense. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20011103170327.051b5f00>