> ...I'm certainly on the side of the those with disability.
In your mind, is it possible to be on the side of those with the disability and yet still against the ADA?
Put another way, given the two concrete examples mentioned (UCB and Stanford) did actual people with actual disabilities gain greater access to the content that was taken offline (in order to comply with the ADA)? Lots of laws have good intentions and bad effects. I think we should judge them by their effects, not their intentions.
If ADA compliant content requires more resources to produce, allowing something to remain in violation because it’s free seems like a great way to price ADA compliant content out of existence.
That said, perhaps an improvement to the ADA would be budget to help producers of free content to become ADA compliant.
In your mind, is it possible to be on the side of those with the disability and yet still against the ADA?
Put another way, given the two concrete examples mentioned (UCB and Stanford) did actual people with actual disabilities gain greater access to the content that was taken offline (in order to comply with the ADA)? Lots of laws have good intentions and bad effects. I think we should judge them by their effects, not their intentions.