Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Where will this stuff finally end?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,960

    Where will this stuff finally end?

    Just when you think most of the ridiculous things that could happen have already happened along comes this gem...

    Blind Man Sues Playboy Website for Violation of ADA.

    What's next? Sue Southwest Airlines because they won't let a blind person be a pilot?

    Some days - it just simply does not pay to read the news....
    My granddad always said, :As one door closes, another opens".
    Wonderful man, terrible cabinet maker...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    The nation needs some kind of tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits. I doubt if that will happen though because that is the way a lot of lawyers make a living and the legislatures are primarily composed of lawyers. Where I come from, there are billboards all over the place soliciting people who have been in a wreck to sue the other guy. One guy has the following slogan, "In a wreck and need a check? Call ### ### ####".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,312
    Blog Entries
    1
    An episode of (at least) one TV crime drama involved a scheme of 'nuisance' law suits. The cases were filed, then the plaintiff would accept the first low ball offer of settlement.

    A public transit agency, my former employer, was often said to quickly settle a lot of cases in such a manner.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hayes, Virginia
    Posts
    14,759
    I have read the entire ADA specification and I don't recall any section that covers access to digital media. For there to be a violation it seems to me that the ADA would need to be revised first.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas
    Posts
    1,980
    What the person wants is for textual contents to be compatible with his screen reading software that converts text to speech or Braille so the blind can utilize the internet. The fact that the articles are in Playboy is immaterial. I understand his frustration being totally dependent on closed captions to make sense of video content of any kind. I hope that he is successful.
    My three favorite things are the Oxford comma, irony and missed opportunities

    The problem with humanity is: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and God-like technology. Edward O. Wilson

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    22,480
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Mann View Post
    The nation needs some kind of tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits.
    If the lawyer who took the case loses, he has to pay what was being sought by the plaintiff . . . to the defendant.
    "A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg".


    – Samuel Butler

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Modesto, CA, USA
    Posts
    9,811
    Maybe he needs to use a different text to speech app. can I sue because many programs do not work on my MAC and are for PC only. How about older programs that do not work on the new improved windows. I bet Lotus works does not work on the latest version of windows nor does MS-dos stuff. My Beta movies do not work on my blu-ray player. Nor do my dads 78's. My edison cylinder records are no longer supported?
    What do you mean Morse code is no longer needed to get a radio license. Next thing you know the army signal corps will no longer be training telegraph operators or even how to load a musket.
    Bil lD.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    NE Iowa
    Posts
    1,207
    There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.

    Of course it makes a cute joke to belittle a blind man wanting Playboy content, but as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability, I'm not laughing. Even though this particular character and lawsuit looks likelikely to be more gold digging than motivated by real discrimination, it still feels like the laugh would come at the expense of the disabled.
    Last edited by Steve Demuth; 12-01-2018 at 12:54 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    6,960
    What the person wants is for textual contents to be compatible with his screen reading software that converts text to speech or Braille so the blind can utilize the internet. The fact that the articles are in Playboy is immaterial. I understand his frustration being totally dependent on closed captions to make sense of video content of any kind
    I see what your saying - but - that brings an even different kind of issue to the table. That of "shock" value. The fact that the content is on Playboy's sin't immaterial in the least. Had the target been something of less "shock value", then the whole case would have just disappeared.

    There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.
    Ok - say he is successful. What's next? Do we lose a great place to learn and hangout because Keith can't afford to conform to ADA guidelines by implementing conforming software?
    My granddad always said, :As one door closes, another opens".
    Wonderful man, terrible cabinet maker...

  10. #10
    HMMMMMM> If web sites are "accommodations" then can I sue facebook for discriminating against me for talking about my second amendment rights? Or for shutting down my first amendment rights by making certain subjects forbidden? If the phone company had refused to provide service to certain businesses because of a private censorship policy, do you think the states would have permitted such a thing? Why isn't facebook subject to the same policies? Should craigs list be able to ban listing guns for sale?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    NE Iowa
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Hilbert Jr View Post
    HMMMMMM> If web sites are "accommodations" then can I sue facebook for discriminating against me for talking about my second amendment rights? Or for shutting down my first amendment rights by making certain subjects forbidden? If the phone company had refused to provide service to certain businesses because of a private censorship policy, do you think the states would have permitted such a thing? Why isn't facebook subject to the same policies? Should craigs list be able to ban listing guns for sale?
    You can sue Facebook if you want - you just won't get anything other than maybe some publicity out of the effort. (You could also sue Keith for moderating any endorsement or deprecation of specific politicians off this website, with the same result). All businesses that provide a services to the public that meet certain broad definitions of "public accommodation" are required by the ADA to be provide accessible services. There is no comparable law that requires businesses to respect First Amendment rights of its customers or employees. Since the First Amendment only enjoins government from restricting speech, not "the people', you'd have no case. Businesses on the other hand have a case grounded in their First Amendment rights (they are people under current Constitutional doctrine, so they have these rights) that they can control the content that appears on any page they produce.

    Business like Facebook also make the case that the are not content publishers, just conduits for what their users publish, so they cannot be held liable or anything "you" say through "their" site. So, they're having their cake and eating it at the same time. There are suggestions in some quarters to regulate big public media properties like Facebook so that this is not the case.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    4,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Outten View Post
    I have read the entire ADA specification and I don't recall any section that covers access to digital media. For there to be a violation it seems to me that the ADA would need to be revised first.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Demuth View Post
    There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.

    Of course it makes a cute joke to belittle a blind man wanting Playboy content, but as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability, I'm not laughing. Even though this particular character and lawsuit looks likelikely to be more gold digging than motivated by real discrimination, it still feels like the laugh would come at the expense of the disabled.

    The Department of Justice (which handles ADA rulemaking and enforcement) has left the internet accessibility question in limbo, but courts are beginning to address it. The most notable case so far is Gil v. Winn-Dixie.

    As someone who is in training to be an ADA Coordinator (I just need to take and pass the test--I've been to several multi-day conferences for the required classes), I can say that one thing that has been drummed into us from the beginning is that while accessibility guidelines may be the minimum rules, the GOAL is to increase access (barrier removal), in a reasonable manner, to people with disabilities. So, in light of the DOJ's lack of rulemaking, and the courts' decisions so far, many government and business entities are choosing to apply WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0). There are web tools available that can analyze one's website for accessibility.
    Jason

    "Don't get stuck on stupid." --Lt. Gen. Russel Honore


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    NE Iowa
    Posts
    1,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Engelhardt View Post
    Ok - say he is successful. What's next? Do we lose a great place to learn and hangout because Keith can't afford to conform to ADA guidelines by implementing conforming software?
    Potentially, but it'd require a lot of pieces to fall into place.

    1. Someone would have to sue him. There is no direct government enforcement of ADA - no ADA police with the power to arrest or fine violators.

    2. They would have to make the case that the site is a public accommodation. I don't think that's a slam dunk either way. Better legal minds than mine could enlighten us further.

    3. The software Keith uses and the content the site carries would have to fail to work with most or all of the readers/interpreters available to the public. Having it fail for one doesn't make it inaccessible.

    Given that the site is simple and mostly text and standard web widgets, I doubt there is a problem. Given that Keith doesn't have millions for a suit to go after, he's probably safe anyway. You can sue for damages and accommodation (fixing of deficits in compliance) under ADA but you can't sue to close a service down directly.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Demuth View Post
    There is no doubt that ADA covers websites. Whether Playboy.com is a public accommodation to which the design guidelines apply is a tougher question, but it's not all that far fetched to imagine it is. If it is, then it would be required to present textual material in a fashion that can be read by screen reading software, to have text captions describing graphics, and to have readable transcripts of audio content, among other things.

    Of course it makes a cute joke to belittle a blind man wanting Playboy content, but as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability, I'm not laughing. Even though this particular character and lawsuit looks likely to be more gold digging than motivated by real discrimination, it still feels like the laugh would come at the expense of the disabled.
    Hi Steve.
    There is absolutely nothing funny about people having disabilities. And I can't imagine one much worse than being blind. I do not agree that every imaginable thing someone can touch/use/connect-with has to comply with ADA. IMO, there is a reasonableness factor that should be applied. For example, I have seen perfectly intact sidewalks torn up to add wheelchair ramps, in areas where I have never, ever seen a pedestrian. (Which makes you wonder why there is even a sidewalk there, but that's another story.) I would question why such a sidewalk modification is an appropriate expenditure of public money?

    You're obviously more knowledgeable about all this than I am, as a layman. May I ask the nature of the business you're in? You described yourself "as someone whose business serves people with almost every conceivable class of disability." Are you an Attorney who represents disabled clients or a supplier of accomodations, or something else? Edit: I see your bio says hospital CTO but I don't know enough about what that job entails to make a connection to the handicapped and ADA.

    Edit #2, for all of us: IIRC, Mr. Hilbert is/was a practicing Attorney, which (if correct) adds an interesting dimension to this discussion.

    Take care,
    Fred
    Last edited by Frederick Skelly; 12-01-2018 at 10:09 AM. Reason: Clarify
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    “If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    I am worried that the phrase that I have enlarged and made red is likely to be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Roehl View Post
    The Department of Justice (which handles ADA rulemaking and enforcement) has left the internet accessibility question in limbo, but courts are beginning to address it. The most notable case so far is Gil v. Winn-Dixie.

    As someone who is in training to be an ADA Coordinator (I just need to take and pass the test--I've been to several multi-day conferences for the required classes), I can say that one thing that has been drummed into us from the beginning is that while accessibility guidelines may be the minimum rules, the GOAL is to increase access (barrier removal), in a reasonable manner, to people with disabilities. So, in light of the DOJ's lack of rulemaking, and the courts' decisions so far, many government and business entities are choosing to apply WCAG 2.0 (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0). There are web tools available that can analyze one's website for accessibility.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •