3 ms·

Do you remember the HN story about the DoJ letter to UCB? Did you read the letter? There is significant leeway in which cases the DoJ pursues, and in how the

Do you remember the HN story about the DoJ letter to UCB? Did you read the letter? There is significant leeway in which cases the DoJ pursues, and in how the DoJ pursues and investigates cases. In no way was the DoJ's finding (i.e. threat of legal action, fines, etc.) a given. It also seems obvious that UCB could have claimed that to address the complaint would have been cost-prohibitive (which the DoJ letter listed as a possible defense), yet they didn't attempt to do so. Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? > not a "product" of Obama's DOJ other than the expectation that the DOJ enforce the laws of the United States. A bizarre statement, considering how the Obama administration and DoJ simply declined to enforce laws they didn't like.

danso 10y ago
> Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Yes, the DoJ is all about priorities. Obama's administration put more resources into its civil rights division compared to the Bush (GWB) era, which looked more into voter fraud among other issues. That other administrations may have let the law go unenforced does not mean that the law should or can be ignored when litigants pursue a complaint. And yes, I have read the other HN threads on this and have occasionally chimed in the discussion [0]. The issue is a lot more nuanced than "THANKS OBAMA SJWs". But it's a path that the United States as a whole decided to walk down in 1990, in bipartisan fashion, when it passed the sweeping American Disabilities Act. The ADA has had massive costs for businesses and organizations in the past decades: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant how ironic it is for people who have devoted their lives to educating others to file a complaint causing freely available educational resources to be destroyed.
  - danso 10y ago
    That's one irony to note. Another irony worth noting is that a premier publicly-funded university, in the U.S. state that is among the most proactive in enforcing ADA regulations, expended taxpayer-funded resources to produce educational videos that did not meet ADA regulations. Those educational resources may have been "freely available" because they were posted on YouTube, but the folks who did the work of curating, editing, and producing those resources for YouTube are paid with public funds, and are thus obligated to follow the rules of ADA. If "well at least it's better than nothing" is the excuse for deprioritizing access to these resources, then the ADA's ability to protect the disenfranchised becomes effectively meaningless.

danso 10y ago

> Also, this action was only pursued after two professors at a university for the deaf filed an official complaint with the DoJ. Isn't it bizarre that two professors at an institute of higher-learning filed a complaint to have educational resources, which were freely available to the entire world, deleted? No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Yes, the DoJ is all about priorities. Obama's administration put more resources into its civil rights division compared to the Bush (GWB) era, which looked more into voter fraud among other issues. That other administrations may have let the law go unenforced does not mean that the law should or can be ignored when litigants pursue a complaint. And yes, I have read the other HN threads on this and have occasionally chimed in the discussion [0]. The issue is a lot more nuanced than "THANKS OBAMA SJWs". But it's a path that the United States as a whole decided to walk down in 1990, in bipartisan fashion, when it passed the sweeping American Disabilities Act. The ADA has had massive costs for businesses and organizations in the past decades: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856

alphapapa 10y ago
> No, it is not bizarre that lawyers at a university for the deaf, precisely the population that one expects to notice this infraction and to also have the monetary resources to file a complaint, were the ones who filed a complaint. That's often how lawsuits come about. Sorry if I was unclear. I meant how ironic it is for people who have devoted their lives to educating others to file a complaint causing freely available educational resources to be destroyed.
- danso 10y ago
  That's one irony to note. Another irony worth noting is that a premier publicly-funded university, in the U.S. state that is among the most proactive in enforcing ADA regulations, expended taxpayer-funded resources to produce educational videos that did not meet ADA regulations. Those educational resources may have been "freely available" because they were posted on YouTube, but the folks who did the work of curating, editing, and producing those resources for YouTube are paid with public funds, and are thus obligated to follow the rules of ADA. If "well at least it's better than nothing" is the excuse for deprioritizing access to these resources, then the ADA's ability to protect the disenfranchised becomes effectively meaningless.