Posted by dorayme on 11/26/73 11:18

> From: "Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete@hotmail.com>

> On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:12:16 +0200, Els <els.aNOSPAM@tiscali.nl> wrote:
>

>> No one /needs/ access to barbie.com, but it's illegal (imo) to
>> obstruct the entrance to the post office so that a disabled person
>> can't send a letter, or to make a public library site inaccessible to
>> the blind, even though they have enough braille books in their
>> collection.
>>
>
> Ooo, how I disagree :-) Who are you/me/we to decide what it is that anyone
> _needs_ What's a need? Needs develop. Though food, drink and safety are among
> the first things you need, why would being able to express oneself creatively
> not be a need but just some want all of a sudden? Who draws the line? Doesn't
> a
> blind person have the right of the experience to 'see' a barbie by handling
> one?

You need to calibrate what you agree with or disagree with in this matter
against an important distinction, namely what is compulsory and what is
voluntary. You are right that it would be a decent thing for some people to
have access to some things not normally considered essential. But, taking
into account what should be voluntary and what should not be, it becomes
more complicated. It should not be illegal *not* to provide access to some
things however much they are desired. If you do not take this point into
account, there would be the very danger that Travis is concerned with, a
stifling conformity.

In particular, a new site on a new thing can happily be restricted. If it
becomes popular, by whatever means then some reassessment of access may then
be made. But voluntarily.

dorayme

[Back to original message]