[thelist] targeting effectively

[Ben Dyer]

First, a tip:

<tip type="Law and Technology" author="Ben Dyer">
A great site for discussion and news about the law in regards to technology
is LawMeme:
<http://www.lawmeme.org/>

Another good one is Politechbot:
<http://www.politechbot.com/>
</tip>

On 02:27 PM 3/26/2002, Erik Mattheis said to me:
>PS - Here's an interesting case that's just as or probably more
>applicable to this discussion than Sydney - someone (unsuccessfully)
>suing a private website under the ADA:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=OKbridge+ADA

There are certainly different circumstances with this case, but it
definitely does not exempt siteowners from the ADA:

From:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7lmJF72VcvwC:www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/aprsep00.pdf+OKbridge+ADA&hl=en>

Fifth Circuit Avoids Ruling on Internet Coverage

>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Hooks v. OKBridge did
>not reach the issue of ADA internet coverage in dismissing a suit against
>a commercial website on which customers can play bridge for a fee. The
>plaintiff alleged that he was terminated from membership at the site
>because he has bipolar disorder. The U.S. District Court for the Western
>District of Texas earlier ruled against the plaintiff, because it believed
>that a company providing services over the internet is not a physical
>place of public accommodation under the ADA and that defendant was exempt
>from the ADA as a "private club." On appeal, the Department filed an
>amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit arguing that public accommodations
>under title III are not limited to companies providing services to
>customers at a physical location and that the entertainment or recreation
>services provided by OKBridge make it a place of public accommodation. The
>brief also argued that the OKBridge website is not a private club because
>it is a profit-making business with more than 18,000 fee-paying members in
>over 90 countries. The Fifth Circuit ruled that OKBridge did not violate
>the ADA because it was not aware of the plaintiff's alleged disability
>when it terminated his membership.

Which means that the lower court ruled in favor of the company because of
the argument that the site was not a public accomodation.  However, on
appeal, the decision was upheld, not for that reason but because OKBridge
"was not aware of the plaintiff's alleged disability when it terminated his
membership" which is not a violation of the ADA. And if you look at the
reason why he was terminated in the first place, according to the Amicus
Curiae brief:

<http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/briefs/hooks.htm>

>OKBridge claimed that it terminated Hooks because of his persistent
>posting of obscene and abusive messages on the site's discussion forum and
>because he cheated during a bridge tournament.

So, basically, none of this precludes the design or development of the site
itself.  It appears to be a misinterpretation of abuse by a site user.

--Ben


Ben Dyer, Senior Internet Developer, Imaginuity Interactive
http://www.imaginuity.com/

                I'm reading your e-mail right now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
   http://members.evolt.org/OKolzig37/     http://www.evolt.org/