Some read it for the articles, some for the settlement $$$

“A legally blind Queens man is suing, saying the website is incompatible with his screen-reading software. Donald Nixon’s class action lawsuit charges the entertainment website with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.” [Emily Saul, New York Post last winter]


  • While I was in high school and through college, I worked part time in Public Library. They had a subscription to Playboy in Braille!

    I found this article about the Braille edition:

  • When the ADA was written, no one imagined it would be used this way. In this case, are we supposed to believe he is visiting Playboy for the articles?

  • It would seem the fault is with his screen-reading software, not the website.

  • […] H/T: Walter Olson […]

  • So, how does one distinguish between a “Legally Blind” individual and any other blind individual? Can someone be illegally blind?

  • there is a technical definition of legally blind. Legally blind persons have some sight, accuity less than 20-200 or with a range narrower than 20 degrees or something similar. My mother was legally blind due to early onset glaucoma. Me, on the other hand, I am totally blind as a result of having both eyes removed. “See” the potential differences? Some legally blind persons can see well enough to pass a visual accuity driving test, unfortunately they can only see things directly in front of them and even small variances outside of directly in front even at distance goes outside their field of view. Then there is visually impaired… I could not tell you who sets that standard, although I know the IRS follows it… Maybe librarian of congress? After all, it is used to determine eligibility for talking books… :DBut hey, there are lawyers here, I am sure someone knows or knows how to find out better than an interested spectator.