> Legally courts can and will regulate companies. It's been happening
> for years! We tell them the required minimum wage, the maximum working
> hours, we regulate overtime, we tell them to put wheelchair ramps in
> front of their doors, we zone their buildings, we make them get
> permits, we do health inspections, etc. etc. etc. We have all these
> laws in place to protect people. People are guaranteed freedom, not
> companies.
> No, the courts cannot force me to make my website accessible, but they
> can force Target Inc. Co. TM (R) to make their website accessible,
> just like they can force Target to do a lot of other things, because
> Target is not a person. It is a seperate entity. It is subject to the
> rule of the courts. And hopefully the courts are interpreting the laws
> correctly and deciding what the people want, in applying it to their
> decisions. I know it gets sketchy after that, but that is how things
> are supposed to work.
> We need to stop arguing with each other about the legal basis of this
> case and just wait and see whether or not the courts will apply the
> ADA to this website. It's that simple, and hopefully we can now get to
> what we should be discussing here, that is, the technical reasons why
> Target.com is not accessible and identifying other company websites
> that are also making the same mistakes. That's all.

Courts adjudicate, not regulate. Regulation is a legislative function
in the United State. Courts can and do discerne previously unkown
rights. But it is the legislative branch which sets limits on the
exercise of those rights with the court's subsequent agreement.

And since Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific in 1886, corporations
have been granted personhood in the United States. In some senses
then, this is a question of balancing competing personal rights.

The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Reply via email to