They don't care at all, and they're NOT afraid of the people. In a best case scenario we get to choose from a field of three or four people, but often there is no choice. Even if there is a choice, our cognitive limitations ensure that we aren't likely to remember which candidate is the lesser evil.
When Attorney General Eric Holder was cited for contempt of Congress no one prosecuted him. When Attorney General Kathleen Kane refused to prosecute corrupt Democratic officials who were caught on video and audio taking bribes to oppose Voter ID, she responded by accusing critics of racism and sexism, and was never prosecuted.
Attorneys General are laws unto themselves, and frequently run unopposed. The only deciding factor for them is "where's the money?" Fear the poeple? Don't make me laugh!
Because,unless they are willing to run a business that is unlicensed, uninsured, and does not accept public help, (i.e police protection, fire fighter's protection, use of the public's streets and sidewalks, etc.) and in all other ways refuses, eschews, and relinquishes all public assistance, then they are beholden to the public - ALL the public, not just the parts of the public they like.
If they refuse all public help, then they could claim with a straight face that they can do whatever they want. They'd still be morally wrong, but they'd be able to make an ethical argument. BUT once they benefit from the public's money in any way, they are running a business, not solely to make money for themselves (although that may be THEIR only reason) but also (because they are licensed at public expense, inspected using public funds, insured by companies that are insured, underwritten, and monitored at public expense, etc. by the public, use public roads, have the right to call the public's police department, etc.) to provide a public good.
I just had a revelation from the angel GloopGloop. My new religion, based on the Bible, but with revelations from GloopGloop, which includes some massive revisions to the old version of the Bible while still (paradoxically) fulfilling the Bible, includes instructions that God commands me to...well, it's a long list.
Suffice it to say: I can get paid by "working" for a person or government, but I can't be made to do any work. By the way, my new religion of called Gloopianism.
1) The lawyers are just misusing the (reasonable) ignorance of small business owners. If it wasn't the ADA it would be some other law. 2) You can put a $25 riser on a toilet - send a certified letter and that's it. They won't want to chase someone who's responding. They're looking for the guys who are either belligerent (translation - stupid) or silent (translation - dumb). 3) This suit over a toilet seat sounds like an urban legend to me (I could of course be wrong - it wouldn't be the first or last time.)
You're right. I wasn't clear. Given that it really isn't expensive - around $20 per page OR LESS to make a website that accommodates the blind (I'm not counting content like videos etc.)
And MORE importantly, given that this cost, meager as it is, would only be imposed on sites that could easily afford it - according to the language of the ADA.
And given that it would be the decent thing to do.
I am explicitly suggesting that the ADA should apply to the web.
You're next question may very well be, "where are you getting these costs from?" I'll tell you. I sat down and translated a few pages, and it took me less than 1/2 hour to copy and paste (and occasionally add text) to make a page that met that VERY LOW bar.
BUT- for those of you who can't stand the idea of making life a LITTLE BIT better for the blind - you know who you are. AND for those of you who want to fight over my cost projection, I repeat - This cost would only be imposed on sites that could easily afford it - according to the language of the ADA.
Movie theaters have the technology - it's called open captioning, but it is expensive - it's way overpriced because it's a specialty item and IT REALLY DOES COST THOUSANDS to install, unlike the fake thousands that some other poster said it cost to caption a movie.
And would not fine them anyway. This is a question of ignorance and ABUSE of the law. The poor small business owners can't know about everything, and so they don't know the ADA laws. Team Prenda knows the law but chooses to lie about how it works. The law itself is fine except in the case of the internet were most complex laws come to fail.
I love your articles and usually agree with them. I even agree with MOST of this article. I was on my phone and I was trying to respond to this post:
email@example.com, Apr 6th, 2015 @ 5:13am What?????
This is rubbish the whole damn case. If subtitles are a legal necessity for movies then the movie industry as the manufacturer should be investing in them.
No website should have any responsibility to the blind or the deaf, under any circumstances.
Maybe netflix should put up a sign on their website, content only available for those that can consume it.
So, I have to apologize twice, one for the F word and once for being so incensed that I targetted to the wrong person. My apologies again. I would like to add that my comment regarding the value of the ADA WAS appropriate to the article. If the ADA provided no benefits to society while it cost individuals money, then it would be a very bad thing all around , as well as being a bad law. I would be a very poor excuse for a person to champion such a law. I feel that, absent Team Prenda and their ilk, the law is a good law that not only helps the handicapped, but also society at large. You cannot understand, just as I did not understand before losing most of my hearing, how difficult it is to get a job when you are handicapped. No one wants to hire you. I have only been able to get small, low-paying jobs since I lost most of my hearing, and I have the advantage of being otherwise healthy and well-educated.