The Americans With Disabilities Act is one of those laws that, on an
emotional level at least, it’s hard to be opposed to. After all, who can
really be against the idea of making it easier for disabled people to
function in the modern world? Indeed, it was a law that passed
overwhelmingly in Congress and was signed into law by a Republican
President, George H.W. Bush. However, in the 20-odd years since the ADA
has become law Courts have struggled with the question of how the law
should be applied and what, exactly, constitutes a
“reasonable accommodation” under the law. No where else has this been
more difficult than in cyberspace, where the question of how the ADA
applies to the Internet is an area where the law has not yet come up
with a good answer. However, a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court Judge in Massachusetts is raising eyebrows in the legal and Internet worlds because of the implications it may hold:
A federal judge in Springfield has ruled that Netflix and other online providers that serve the public are subject to federal disabilities laws, a decision that could require TV shows and movies streamed over the Internet to include captions for the deaf or other accommodations.
On Tuesday, US District Judge Michael Ponsor rejected Netflix’s argument that it is exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. He declined to dismiss an ADA lawsuit against Netflix for failing to provide captions on much of the content it streams to subscribers.
Web-based businesses did not exist when the disabilities act was enacted in 1990, the judge wrote, but the US Congress intended the law to adapt to changes in technology, and it should apply to websites.
The complaint was filed by the National Association of the Deaf, the Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, and Lee Nettles, a staffer at the Stavros Center for Independent Living in Springfield.
Nettles said Netflix discriminates against the hearing-impaired, forcing them to to avoid its streaming service and pay for more expensive DVD rentals to ensure the movies and TV shows they rent are equipped with captions. “It has to be equal accessibility to all people using it,” he said. “It has to be 100 percent equality.”
Read more: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-websites-must-comply-with-americans-with-disabilities-act/
A federal judge in Springfield has ruled that Netflix and other online providers that serve the public are subject to federal disabilities laws, a decision that could require TV shows and movies streamed over the Internet to include captions for the deaf or other accommodations.
On Tuesday, US District Judge Michael Ponsor rejected Netflix’s argument that it is exempt from the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA. He declined to dismiss an ADA lawsuit against Netflix for failing to provide captions on much of the content it streams to subscribers.
Web-based businesses did not exist when the disabilities act was enacted in 1990, the judge wrote, but the US Congress intended the law to adapt to changes in technology, and it should apply to websites.
The complaint was filed by the National Association of the Deaf, the Western Massachusetts Association of the Deaf and Hearing Impaired, and Lee Nettles, a staffer at the Stavros Center for Independent Living in Springfield.
Nettles said Netflix discriminates against the hearing-impaired, forcing them to to avoid its streaming service and pay for more expensive DVD rentals to ensure the movies and TV shows they rent are equipped with captions. “It has to be equal accessibility to all people using it,” he said. “It has to be 100 percent equality.”
Read more: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-websites-must-comply-with-americans-with-disabilities-act/
No comments:
Post a Comment