“Suit demands CNN offer online captions for deaf”

Disabled-rights lawyers said the suit against the news network “is the first in the nation to seek equal treatment for the deaf from a commercial content provider on the Internet.” Expect many others to follow. [Bob Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle]


  • I’m sorry but this letter has been given to our blind associate to handle. Please transmit all correspondence in forms suitable for someone with his disability.


  • Subtitles only in English, or also in other languages?

    What about spoken translations for the blind, and in multiple languages?

  • If you think CNN is going to have a problem captioning their videos, wait until they sue YouTube.

  • And all in quadruplicate–one copy each to you, your lawyer, CNN, and their lawyer.

  • Ask the doc in NJ who lost a 450000 suit because the deaf patient wanted a sign interpreter rather than any other means of communication. God forbid the signer becomes involved in a med mal suit based on informed consent. “Well I thought the signer told her all the risks and benefits…”
    I don’t think captioning will be enough. Signage and braille will be needed for all TV and newspapers and books, twits, facebook post and blogging.
    As I recall the 450K was not a malpractice issue and therefore, med mal insurance did not cover reward.

  • CNN should just publish transcripts with a link to the recorded performance for the deaf and those who insist on listening to it.

    Think of all the time we could all save by not listening to those bloviating idiots.