[thelist] [trolling] Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web

[Steve Lewis]

Feingold Josh S wrote:

> A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not have to revamp
> its Web site to make it more accessible to the blind.

 > Full story:
 > http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html?tag=fd_top_1

The court opinion:
http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?file=/cases/opinions/02CV21734d24.pdf

Interesting reading.

This does nothing to change the fact that more than 1.5 million blind
'net surfers are denied reasonable access to the website.  This does
nothing to change the facts: Southwest may change their website anyway,
and attempting to provide for accessibility is a Very Good Idea.

1: the Plantiff & Counsel "made no effort to resolve this dispute prior
to filing their Complaint," which is just bad manners.

2: the Plantiff's Complaint covers four counts, but says nothing about
being denied access to special fares or offers, and thus unreasonable
discrimination in pricing based on disability; perhaps a failure on the
part of Plaintiffs' Councel, perhaps they felt it was not a strong
enough argument to include.  I wonder... we have seen injunctions in US
Courts over the discrepency in pricing haircuts for women and men, I
would think this argument would fly here (pun intended).

3: Citing Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler's
Assoc. of New England, the judge conceeds that "the facts in this case
might arguably require this Court to include Internet websites within
the ADA's definition of 'public accommodations,' the Eleventh Circuit
has not read Title III of the ADA nearly as broadly as the First
Circuit." ... and while there is now precedent in the US for not
applying the ADA to the Internet I would imagine the threat has not
passed completely.

Chris Blessing wrote:

 > This is brilliant, now if the same judge could get put on the Google
 > law suit that would rock:
 >
 > http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/21/1254221.shtml?tid=99

<troll>
Now, if only we could get such a strict interpretation of the 2nd
Amendment in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights...
</troll>

--Steve