MESSAGE
| DATE | 2017-03-15 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout-NYLXS] Fwd: Re: [nylug-talk] Fwd: Contact DOJ and thell
|
Andrew Beyer wrote:
> The ADA definitely had its fair share of opposition and debate, I
> wouldn't call it "full support."
It's had it's debate and compromises. But people have generally been
for recognizing disabilities as causing some of the same
discriminations as race. So it's not so much that people don't want
it, but people disagree on things.
> And the way we do that in our system of government is to enact
> legislation to that effect, not to take ridiculously broad
> interpretations of other laws and enforce them by administrative
> decree.
I don't see this as 'broad.' I see this as adopting to changes in
technology.
Again ... how does streaming video differ from VHS and DVD recordings
of classes? There are already precedents on this. That's what I
don't understand.
And if you're argument is that they can just get the free VHD or DVD
recordings, doesn't that fall back to the 'litmus test' (failing) of
'separate but equal'? Especially when not everything is available in
those formats, they are dated or behind, etc...?
For every single video I've ever done, I've done a dialog (if
pre-written), or transcript (if post).
Maybe it's because I think of people because I personally know them.
But isn't that how it's supposed to work? We're supposed to think of
minorities when we do anything, instead of having the government have
to point it ou?
> Rightfully so, at least in the legal sense. As a private entity
> Netflix is subject to Title III, which by a reasonable reading of the
> law, and multiple prior court rulings, applies to "places of public
> accommodation," not to media on the web.
And yet, it happened. And it bettered things. The industry has
changed, for the much better. I'd say that's something that happened
and was positive.
The US gov't didn't 'shut Netflix down.'
They didn't force Netflix to do it overnight.
They made a very reasonable, achievable goal.
The US DoJ and other entities are just trying to enact change.
I don't always agree, but I can see it from the point of view of the
minorities I know.
> see Access Now. v. Southwest Airlines
> [http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/docket/110402access-ruling.pdf]:
>> In interpreting the plain and unambiguous language of the ADA, and its applicable federal regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized Congress' clear intent that Title III of the ADA governs solely access to physical,
>> concrete places of public accommodation. Rendon, 294 F.3d at 1283-84; Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc., 215 F.3d 1237, 1241 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting that "because Congress has provided such a comprehensive
>> definition of 'public accommodation,' we think that the intent of Congress is clear enough"). Where Congress has created specifically enumerated rights and expressed the intent of setting forth "clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
>> standards," courts must follow the law as written and wait for Congress to adopt or revise legislatively-defined standards that apply to those rights. Here, to fall within the scope of the ADA as presently drafted,
>> a public accommodation [*14] must be a physical, concrete structure. To expand the ADA to cover "virtual" spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards.
So, someone with hearing disabilities shouldn't be able to get access
to learning materials over the web, from a public university? That's
a 'virtual space,' and shouldn't be applied?
Again, _how_ is this different than prior applications of Title II on
VHS and DVD?
> Public institutions subject to Title II must, not necessarily private
> ones, though.
Hence, UC Berkeley. ;)
Do we at least agree here?
> That's actually pretty close (minus the hyperbolic gun) to the
> interpretation that I see reading the DOJ's statements after the
> Netflix settlement.
> But by reinterpreting the law they open it up for anyone to file suit.
> They can't go after one without the other.
Okay, I'll meet you half-way there.
It's not quite like the UC Berekely case, a public entity with public
funding and involving unified educational access and opportunity,
instead of 'separate but equal.'
- bjs
P.S. Again, I screwed up and said Title III when I meant Title II, as
I posted shortly after.
--
Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith
E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me
_______________________________________________
nylug-talk mailing list
nylug-talk-at-nylug.org
http://mail.nylug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nylug-talk
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
