4 ms·

Yes, making it so only the rich could hope to afford winning a court case (let alone losing one) is a great way to reduce the number of people using the legal s

• gowld 7y ago
  Small claims court is free.
  • liability 7y ago
    And completely unsuitable for a wide range of important grievances.
  • sokoloff 7y ago
    > Small claims court is free. It is not free in my jurisdiction. I would think it’s not free in most jurisdictions.
  • ajross 7y ago
    This is literally about a case before (OK, strictly a request to) the supreme court of the united states, having been through multiple previous courts already. How do you propose elevating such a case from... a small claims court?
• remote_phone 7y ago
  Blind people who can’t access a web site don’t suffer from a large damage that deserves a large payout. Period. End of story. Yes web sites should be accessible. But there should be a better way to incentivize this than civil lawsuits. This has been going on for decades and needs to be stopped. Even Clint Eastwood was sued in Carmel.
  • lykr0n 7y ago
    What a fucked up train of thought. It's like saying "this person can't sit in the front of the bus- it's not a large damage. We shouldn't worry about it." Fuck you. It's that kind of thought that makes people think cashless stores are a good idea. It's exclusionary and normalizes us forgetting about the outliers of society. There is a better way to do it. It's called a law. People are required to follow it, and if they don't there are two ways we solve it. Criminal or Civil Law Suits.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]