In the US, there already has been a few lawsuits against big name corporations, I believe Southwest Airlines and Holiday Inn both settled. The current one is Target http://www.jimthatcher.com/law-target.htm.
I feel, maybe incorrectly, that current law suits at least in the US are brought against large big name organizations for a reason. The importance of Target has to do with the American with Disabilities Act and the question whether this law has to expand to include the virtual world has to adhere to the same accessibility standards as the brick and mortar world. Nancy On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Rick Lecoat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21 Aug 2008, at 17:56, Jon Warner wrote: > >> If I hosted a party, of course I would do my best to accommodate >> everyone's needs but to receive a court summons several days later because i >> had not installed a wheelchair ramp, for example, is surely wrong. > > The wheelchair ramp analogy, whilst not perfect, is a useful one I think. To > refer to the example you used, I don't see that anyone would expect you to > install a wheelchair ramp for the sake of a one-off private party (although > if you invited your wheelchair-using friends they might get a bit p**sed off > if you hadn't catered for them). I guess the equivalent of that on the > internet is a personal site or blog which, whilst existing on the public > internet, makes no attempt to provide content aimed at the wider public, and > is simply a vanity site of one sort or another. > > However, a site that provides a service to the wider public (be that in the > form of information, professional debate, selling a product or service, or > anything else like that), then the analogous 'real world' experience would > be that of a shop or library or seminar venue not installing a ramp, and > that of course is a very different situation because the service provided > has an implied invitation to the public as a whole. To use your party > analogy, the private party would be a nightclub open to all-comers; whether > they have to pay to enjoy the service is immaterial, the implied invitation > to the public is there. > > In the vanity site situation I guess that the more personal the site content > the harder it would be to bring discrimination case (though I /suppose/ that > someone could argue -- just -- that they were desperately interested in what > you had for breakfast and that since the site is on the public internet they > have a right to be able to access it); with the second situation, however, > the 'service offered to the public' aspect means that the potential for a > law suit is very clear. > > Just my take. > > -- > Rick Lecoat > www.sharkattack.co.uk > > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
