Occasionally liberals (or other people who are clueless about economics) will say that we should just "make such-and-such free." They will even imply that, if it weren't for the "profit motive" (which is seen as per se a bad thing, a manifestation of greed), all sorts of things could just "be free."
Patiently, the free market advocate will attempt to explain that nothing is free. If you "make" some particular medication "free," that just means that the cost of researching it, developing it, manufacturing it, prescribing it properly, shipping it, etc., are spread around somewhere else--to people paying higher insurance premiums, for example.
Just occasionally, though, someone will actually try their best to "make something free." This might take the form of volunteers who give their time and money to hand out food to the homeless. Or it might take the form of a university that, having developed on-line courses and having a lot of bandwidth, tells the public at large that they may avail themselves of the on-line material of the courses.
Enter the government busybodies.
We all know the stories of the churches forbidden to give food systematically to the homeless if they haven't jumped through some bureaucratic hoops. Here, for example.
Now the Department of Justice, not having anything better to do with its time, is stopping UC Berkeley from giving the public access to its on-line courses because the content allegedly does not comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. (By the way, if you're old enough to remember, did you also think the ADA sounded like a really bad idea at the time? I sure did.) Specifically, the material is difficult for deaf and blind people to make use of. And (I know this will shock you) UC's offer of help to accommodate the deaf and blind in taking its courses (thus trying to comply with the ADA) extends not to every deaf or blind person worldwide who might want to use on-line courses for free but only to its own enrolled students. Terrible, isn't it?
So, predictably, UC is probably just going to take down the public access to the courses, because it would be prohibitively expensive to make the changes demanded by the DOJ.