[Sigia-l] Judge rules Americans with Disabilities Act doesn't cover web

[Adam Greenfield]

> >     "To expand the ADA to cover 'virtual' spaces would be to create new
> >     rights without well-defined standards," Seitz wrote in a 12-page
> >     opinion dismissing the case. "The plain and unambiguous language of
> >     the statute and relevant regulations does not include Internet Web
> >     sites."

Heh, "Internet Web sites."

Unfortunately, this particular decision may be airtight legally, predicated
as it is on a close reading of the ADA itself, which goes to the definition
of "public accomodation." Judge Seitz holds that, since the ADA goes to
great length to identify and demarcate public accomodations in physical
space, its omission of any mention of virtual spaces is a clear indication
of legislative intent. Of course, I would attribute this to the fact that
the "plain and unambiguous" definitions of the ADA were framed and signed
into law (1990) prior to the advent of the World Wide Web - but, still, in a
narrow, "letter of the law" interpretation, the decision is correct.

What troubles me about the opinion, though, is that Seitz finds no
connection "between southwest.com and a physical, concrete place of public
accommodation." Well, this is just nonsense, as ignorant of contemporary
common sense as the decision in the original Apple v. Microsoft "look and
feel" litigation. For all intents and purposes, Southwest's Web site is
identical with a streetside ticket desk: its raison d'etre is to offer
airline tickets for sale to the general public. If this is not plainly and
unambiguously a "facility, operated by a private entity, whose operations
affect commerce," then I'm not sure what is.

Ever yrs,
Adam Greenfield
Lead information architect

Frontage-Razorfish
Tokyo

T +81 3 5475 2055 (direct)
F +81 3 5475 2021 (fax)