Comments on: In Days Before The Internet http://www.popehat.com/2009/08/20/in-days-before-the-internet/ A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:39:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: gbasden http://www.popehat.com/2009/08/20/in-days-before-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-40167 gbasden Sun, 23 Aug 2009 00:29:39 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=5737#comment-40167 I was just in there for lunch last week. Given how superb the food is, I'm very glad to know that they aren't being threatened by the lawsuit anymore. I was just in there for lunch last week. Given how superb the food is, I'm very glad to know that they aren't being threatened by the lawsuit anymore.

]]> By: Gary http://www.popehat.com/2009/08/20/in-days-before-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-39922 Gary Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:59:22 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=5737#comment-39922 That's good to hear. Does this mean the original Squeeze Inn is still open. I was planning to drive up there from L.A. before it relocated to sample the grub. This gives me some more time. That's good to hear. Does this mean the original Squeeze Inn is still open. I was planning to drive up there from L.A. before it relocated to sample the grub. This gives me some more time.

]]> By: ADA complainant drops suit against Sacramento’s Squeeze Inn http://www.popehat.com/2009/08/20/in-days-before-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-39905 ADA complainant drops suit against Sacramento’s Squeeze Inn Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:10:12 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=5737#comment-39905 [...] the burger stand will move from its cramped quarters anyway. [Sacramento Bee, earlier] Patrick at Popehat wonders whether the lawsuit by Kimberly Block and attorney Jason Singleton would have ended [...] [...] the burger stand will move from its cramped quarters anyway. [Sacramento Bee, earlier] Patrick at Popehat wonders whether the lawsuit by Kimberly Block and attorney Jason Singleton would have ended [...]

]]> By: BP http://www.popehat.com/2009/08/20/in-days-before-the-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-39794 BP Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:33:44 +0000 http://www.popehat.com/?p=5737#comment-39794 I don't know that this had all that much to do with the internet <i>getting</i> the word out as opposed to <i>keeping</i> the word out. Every internet comment on the story seemed to link to classic media sources -- either the Sac Bee article or the local TV pieces. The Squeeze Inn is locally famous, and this is probably what prompted the local news coverage. I can't agree that nobody would have noticed the lawsuit if not for the internet. On the other hand, before the internet, if you missed the TV or newspaper story ... you missed it. Somebody who had seen or read it might have mentioned it to you, but there was no real permanence to the local coverage. Blogs like this one are able to alert more people to what's going on, but not through any inherent power of their own. Rather, it's largely because of the permanent, on-line homes of local newspaper and TV stories which can be linked to. And we of course know that ADA shakedowns are still occurring with regularity throughout the state. The internet isn't preventing those suits from happening. So the difference here is not the existence of the internet, but rather the famous nature of the targeted business, and the owner telling local press that he may have to shut his doors. The internet helped, sure, but the lesson here is not "Internet Helps Stop Silly ADA Suit." It's "Don't Target Famous Small Businesses at your ADA Filing Mill." Mr. Singletary should be investigated by the state bar. The only reason I can see that his client would drop this suit is under pressure from him due to a feared backlash from continued negative publicity. He doesn't want a suit against the Squeeze Inn to drum up so much negative commentary that the law is changed. What would he do for a living then? He has instead given up on recovering for his client's injury in this case in order to ensure continuation of his own lucrative business into the future. I don't know that this had all that much to do with the internet getting the word out as opposed to keeping the word out. Every internet comment on the story seemed to link to classic media sources — either the Sac Bee article or the local TV pieces. The Squeeze Inn is locally famous, and this is probably what prompted the local news coverage. I can't agree that nobody would have noticed the lawsuit if not for the internet.

On the other hand, before the internet, if you missed the TV or newspaper story … you missed it. Somebody who had seen or read it might have mentioned it to you, but there was no real permanence to the local coverage. Blogs like this one are able to alert more people to what's going on, but not through any inherent power of their own. Rather, it's largely because of the permanent, on-line homes of local newspaper and TV stories which can be linked to.

And we of course know that ADA shakedowns are still occurring with regularity throughout the state. The internet isn't preventing those suits from happening. So the difference here is not the existence of the internet, but rather the famous nature of the targeted business, and the owner telling local press that he may have to shut his doors. The internet helped, sure, but the lesson here is not "Internet Helps Stop Silly ADA Suit." It's "Don't Target Famous Small Businesses at your ADA Filing Mill."

Mr. Singletary should be investigated by the state bar. The only reason I can see that his client would drop this suit is under pressure from him due to a feared backlash from continued negative publicity. He doesn't want a suit against the Squeeze Inn to drum up so much negative commentary that the law is changed. What would he do for a living then? He has instead given up on recovering for his client's injury in this case in order to ensure continuation of his own lucrative business into the future.

]]>