3 ms·
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a rea
by Zungaron 10y ago
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a reasonable timeframe to update it.
- BeetleB 10y ago>Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a reasonable timeframe to update it. Yes, I realize now that this did not go to court. However, you have not shown how my interpretation is incorrect.
- Zungaron 10y agoHere's the letter the DoJ sent to Berkeley. Note the lack of hard deadlines or requirements the content be removed. Also note the date. https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-UC-Berkeley-LOF.pdf https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
- euyyn 10y agoThanks for the link! It's interesting to me that captioning the videos wouldn't have been enough to solve all the accessibility issues. In some cases, the preference to just record the lecture again is obvious, as in "the lecturer pointed to and talked about parts of a drawing without describing the drawing first, making it inaccessible to vision-impaired people".