Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
And the blind could buy a Daisy version of a pbook.
But that's not how the law is written: the Laws (several, actually) explicitly outlaw "separate but equal" arguments. Requiring the disabled to buy a separate product is explicitly called out and prohibited. The only exceptions are for "undue burden" but now that feasibility of an economical solution has been established the exception goes away.
In fact, other audiobook vendor might be *required* to add captions.
They can take it up with Congress.
|
And once again, Gideon J. Tucker is proved correct when he wrote: "
No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."
BTW, how exactly is "undue burden" defined? Are they using the US Supreme Court's definition dating back to the 19th century? Please note that that definition prevents the legislature from passing a law that will create an undue burden. Going by that usage, if a court ruled that the ADA created an undue burden, the ADA would be held to be unconstitutional and, hence, invalid.
Hmmm.... I do remember one friend of mine getting a chuckle when his neighbour in Texas obtained a rifle and a hunting license despite being well past the requirements for legal blindness (he uses a bioptic telescope to watch television).