Deaf sue movie theaters

Great Debates
1

I’m particularly interested in Handy’s opinion on this:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGICE3PFB7C.html

We’re not talking about access to public buildings or equal education or health care—how much are the handicapped (or elderly, or short, or overweight, etc.) really “owed” by society? Sometimes life just sucks, and everyone can’t have access to everything they’d like to.

Yes, I feel sorry for deaf people who can’t hear the movie—but sometimes, isn’t being handicapped just an unavoidable, crappy inconvenience? I have a good friend who’s blind, and it never occured to him to sue to get EVERY book on tape.

2

Well, in Wisconsin, the wheel-chair bound and the blind are both allowed to hunt.

The blind? Allowed to hunt?

I would say that suing over lack of subtitles will achieve virtually nothing. If Hollywood thinks they can make money by close-captioning movies they will; if not, they won’t. (And movie prices will, of course, rise.)

I could easily see an independent director saying that his or her movies aren’t going to be understood by someone who can’t hear, in the same way that a composer could make this claim.

I think we should first start suing over 3 hour movies without an intermission, personally.

Bucky

3

My OP comes off nastier than I’d intended (“aw, the heck with you deafies!”). What I MEANT was, it is awfully nice when movies provide captioning; but should they be required to? I always thought that if—kina hora!—I went deaf or blind, that certain amusements would simply be unobtainable.

I’m certainly in favor of wheelchair accessibility, and all that kinda stuff . . . And I do think dwarves should be allowed to ride roller coasters . . .

4

Hmmmmm, it wouldn’t get him very far if he did. That’s because he could get certain books on tape if he really, really wanted. All he has to do is find a friend with a tape recorder, a lot of time, and who’s willing to do a favor. So the court wouldn’t consider his case to be one where he doesn’t have equal access.

I wish the article would have explained why the rear projection option would be obsolete soon. That one seemed to make the most sense. Several theaters provide special rooms for mother’s with babies. Why not project the subtitles on the windows of those rooms? The deaf aren’t going to be bothered by screaming babies.

The seat back idea just doesn’t make sense to me. How can you watch the movie if you’re reading the back of a seat? And what do you do about the fact that theaters are switching to stadium style seating?

5

What will likely happen is something akin to the supertitles used by opera theaters to project the translation of the foreign language being sung. It doesn’t detract from the action on the stage/screen like subtitles projected with the movie do.

Movie theaters are ‘public accomodations’ as established by other ADA lawsuits regarding access for wheelchair bound individuals. They therefore have to provide their wares to those who are handicapped under the ADA, which include the deaf. How to do that is the only real question involved.

6

Isn’t this barking up the wrong tree? The movie theaters didn’t produce the movie. They didn’t choose to have it utilize sound as a main sensory input.

Are blind people going to start suing over silent movies?

As the OP said, some things are just rotten luck. Unfortunately, deaf people have to wait until a movie comes out on DVD with subtitles (or have a translator sign it to them). A lot of agoraphobic, obese or otherwise non-movie-theater-compliant people have to do the same.

It would be great if movie theaters offered goggles that would display subtitles in the bottom, but it shouldn’t be a law.

7

Eve, how would you feel if you could not see any new film in a theatre ever? Multiply the number of new films per year times how old you are, should give you an indication of how many you would have missed.

NOTE: The deaf person in the article you gave did not ask for money. However, the lawyer gets his fees! That’s a little unknown thing about ADA cases. The lawyer can get paid by the people they sue, but the handicapped person cannot collect.

8

If I was never ever able to see a new movie in a theater, it would mean I’d have to wait for it to come out on video. Which means all the hype would have died down, and all the damned TV ads would be over with, and I could stop the movie and rewind it a little ways if I missed a few seconds. I would also, thanks to closed-captioning, be able to comprehend dialog that the actors mumble or slur. (YOU try making sense of half the things Morgan Freeman says in Driving Miss Daisy without closed-captions!)

It would, however, mean one less option for a place to go out on a date. But that hasn’t been an issue with me for over a year anyway (grumble, grumble).

9

"Eve, how would you feel if you could not see any new film in a theatre ever?’

I would feel lousy, obviously—did I say being deaf was supposed to be a day in the park? Of course, being handicapped means you miss out on a lot of stuff—that’s why being handicapped sucks. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.

What I want to know is, are movie theaters and film companies legally (or even morally) obligated to be nice and spend the time and money involved in making films available to deaf or blind people? Are there any organizations for the deaf or blind who could, should or would provide titles or narration?

Like I said above, I think it’s great when these things are provided. I just wonder if it’s realistic to say “everyone HAS TO provide them, OR ELSE.”

10

I just had a GREAT IDEA for a Class-Action Lawsuit (lawyers take note)! Remember the Chinese restaurant syndrome (some people experience dizziness after consuming food laced with MSG). I just noticed that CHINESE restaurants don’t give this advice (that is the option to order their chow mein without the MSG)VERBALLY-the poor blind people cannot read the menue.
I WANT TO SUE ON BEHALF OF THE BLIND! Question to legal eagles: how do I launch this and when do I get paid?

11

After having read the article, I’d just like to know. Am I right in thinking that the verb “to say” can apply to a sign-language user, but not the verbs “to speak” or “to talk”?

12

Even those who support the purpose of the ADA have to agree it’s a very poorly written law. Basically it sets no standards; it’s just an invitation to file lawsuits, out of the results of which standards will hopefully arise. It’s a pretty sloppy way to address the needs of the people.

Essentially the ADA says that “reasonable access” must be made for the handicapped. So if you feel that subtitling movies is reasonable, then studios and theatres are legally bound to do so. If you think it’s unreasonable, then they’re not. Can’t agree on whether or not it’s reasonable? Then call in the lawyers.

13

Should movie theatres make an effort to accomodate deaf people? I would think so. Isn’t that what the ADA is for?

I read an article once about the fact that new sidewalks (in California) are built with a “depression” near each intersection to allow people with wheelchairs to cross the street. After this was implemented, it proved to be useful to many people, not just the handicapped! Parents with baby strollers, kids on rollerskates, people pushing bicycles, etc… So often it turns out that something required for the convenience of a small portion of society can benefit everyone. In the case of captioning, it could help to shut up a lot of people at the movies who are asking “what did he just say?” :smiley:

Bucky says

I don’t think that is a correct statement. In California (and I imagine in many other states) large restroom stalls are required by law to accomodate the handicapped. This was implemented by legislation. If a court decides that the ADA requires movie theatres to provide captioning for the hearing-impaired, it will be (perhaps slowly) implemented even if it’s not cost-efficient.

14

I will answer Eve again as I did already once.

The ADA requires the movie theaters to accomodate deaf people, the same as any other disabled people. The required accomodation is ‘reasonable’ accomodation.

The issue, then, is how can the accomodation occur and what would be the cost. Supertitles above stages are already used at almost all operas, so it isn’t very expensive to provide this service. If the movie industry itself didn’t provide the captioning, there would be a quickly-developed cottage industry to do it for them.

And as for Little Nemo’s assertion that the ADA is poorly written, actually that isn’t the case at all. Indeed, most of the ADA wasn’t even NEW when it was passed; it simply applied already existing standards to new situations. There is a wealth of already existing case law on which people dealing with the ADA draw; in many cases the extent of litigation under the law has been far less than predicted. I speak about this with quite a bit of knowledge; for many years in California I represented employers in, among other things, disability discrimination litigation. :slight_smile:

15

OK. I used to be a satisfied lurker, but you guys have called me out.

I’ve been working with deaf children for about ten years, and this is an issue of some import. Frankly, I’m surprised it’s taken this long for someone to finally bring it to court.

About four years ago I was working at a state school for the deaf, and our entire middle school planned a trip to the local IMAX theatre to see a movie about the rainforest, which they were all studying in school. We told the theater ahead of time that we were bringing deaf children, but that we would provide our own interpreter so that the theater didn’t have to. The only thing we asked was that we be allowed to shine a flashlight on the interpreter so that our kids could see in the dark theater. They said no, citing some safety code. We mentioned ADA, but they wouldn’t budge.

The only way we could have made the movie accessible to our kids was to file suit, which I desperately wanted to do. My superiors weren’t willing to make waves, though, and in the end, the kids watched the movie without narration. I tell this story as an example of the unintentional discrimination that still runs rampant.

Social isolation is probably the biggest problem deaf children face, owing to the low incidence of deafness in the population. There are very few hearing kids who are willing to make the effort to learn a new language just so they can be friends with a deaf peer. (This is not a criticism, it’s just human nature.) So while we hearing people think of movies as a luxury, the parents of deaf children see movies as another social opportunity that is denied to their children.

I’ve worked with many mainstreamed deaf children who have few friends either in school or outside of school. When I ask them about their plans for the weekend, they frequently tell me that they have no plans because all the friends they do have are going to see a movie.

So, yes, there are some things about being deaf that just suck, and we can’t change them. But, in this case, we’re the ones responsible for making it suck, because we don’t want to inconvenience ourselves.

So I guess what I’m saying is… I’m on the side of the plaintiff.

16

Can an Internet Bulletin Board be considered a public accomodation? If so, what about the blind? Should all boards be required to offer their content in an audio form?

17

Arnold Winkelried said:

Actually, it’s better than that! Research has shown that the hearing siblings of deaf children learn to read earlier than their age peers, due to their constant exposure to captions on television.

I’m not saying that captions in movie theaters will cure dyslexia, but it certainly can’t hurt to have children seeing the written form of the on-screen dialogue. And it may even encourage some parents to turn on the captions when their children watch television at home.

18

Everyone except the blind, who need sharply defined edges and curbs when navigating via cane. I read an article once about how spectacularly unhelpful curb cuts are for the blind, and how in fact they are potentially dangerous.

19

Millroyj, this isn’t a direct answer to your question but I used to do tech support for a home grocery delivery company that you could place your order via internet. We had several blind people ask if we could put out a text-only or no-frames version as they used a program that (IIRC how it worked) read aloud the text on the page. Corporate nixed the idea.

Due to their inflexibility on this and many other issues, said grocery delivery company is no longer in business.

20

Mojo,

This is exactly how these things should work. If they’re not accomodating their customers, they’ll lose business. In this case, the government shouldn’t intervene to force the grocery company to do this.