Comments on: Judge declines to dismiss ADA suit over streaming Netflix

By: Adam s

Adam s — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 22:58:23 +0000

I think it is reasonable for people to realize that the ADA has gone too far, but I also think it is reasonable to expect people to take advantage of what few rights that the gov doesn’t take away, and to seek ways to make money, improve their situation in life, as well as seek an outlet to exert what little power and influence they have left. Everything the gov does is going to have unintended consequences, this is to be expected as well.

By: Psyop

Psyop — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 21:47:18 +0000

Mass. is the same state that forced eharmony to offer a comparable service to gay people through a discrimination lawsuit. What next?

By: Bull Moose

Bull Moose — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:01:35 +0000

That would be equal to someone in a wheelchair suing disneyland form not making it possible for them to ride magic mountain. I dont like netflix (know some if their downtrodden employees) but this is ridiculous, entertainment is not a right, you dont HAVE to watch movies on Netflix so why would they HAVE to put in closed captioning.

By: mjs

mjs — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:25:02 +0000

At what point can reasonable people agree that the reach of the ADA has gone well past what was envisioned at its passage?

Is it reasonable to expect a societal accommodation for every conceivable action/desire of the disabled?

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:56:33 +0000

@Mark Biggar.

Requiring movie producers to install closed captioning would raise insuperable First Amendment difficulties, if the added expense made the difference between bringing out the film or not.
Netflix could, however, require that movie producers do the closed captioning before offering films to Netflix.

By: Mark Biggar

Mark Biggar — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:22:27 +0000

Why is Netflixs responsible for this and not the movie producers? Besides, I think an argument can be made that adding Closed Captioning to a movie could be considered an illegal creation of a derived work under the Copyright law.