It was my understanding that the ADA requires 'reasonable' accommodations? If that is the case, how does removing the videos from access to anyone qualify as reasonable?
Removing the videos isn't a reasonable accommodation, it's removing the offering to the general public that creates an obligation for reasonable accommodation, thus avoiding the bother of litigation to determine what reasonable accommodation might actually be required.
Berkeley was compelled to remove the content, they chose to in order to avoid the costs of resolving the dispute, to focus on unquestionably compliant content moving forward.
Thanks, I guess I understand that, the point I was trying to make was that the Justice Departments interpretation of the law seems off. I hate to bring up the President- but Trump promised less over-regulation, perhaps he should step in with one of his famous (infamous?) executive orders.
