NAD Files Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit against Netflix

Interesting opinions....but I can't help but snicker at the abbreviation for the National Association for the Deaf. :D


"Heh Heh......he said Nad. Like kick you in the Nad......Heh Heh."
 
txaggies07 said:
Their service does contain a large number of titles that have subtitles. Just because it is a foreign film, does not mean it can't be counted in the movies that have subtitles since a deaf person has just the same access as someone else.
Click to expand...

Some times they have better access to it. Some movies (like Swedish or Finish) sound so ridiculous you almost have to completely tune out the audio in the movie to make it through with the sub titles. Also stupid Indian random songs and dance parts. I would pay someone to make me deaf just so I only have to read those songs, in the end though I just don't watch Indian movies.
 
Topweasel said:
Some times they have better access to it. Some movies (like Swedish or Finish) sound so ridiculous you almost have to completely tune out the audio in the movie to make it through with the sub titles. Also stupid Indian random songs and dance parts. I would pay someone to make me deaf just so I only have to read those songs, in the end though I just don't watch Indian movies.
Click to expand...

Then you'll miss out in 100,000 other movies without subtitles.
 
nutzo said:
Solution:
1. Stop all video streaming until they can provide captions in all possible languages. (so they can avoid lawsuits from every small minority group out there).

2. Provide the name & adress of everyone behind this lawsuit.

3. Wait until the lawyers involved beg them to restart the video streaming service.


Guess I'll go file a lawsuit against GM for not making a car blind people can drive.
Click to expand...

OR, companies can tell the minority of people out there with issues to piss off. Just because you have some affliction does NOT make you entitled to everything normal people are. Life isn't fair and it sucks, I know. But forcing companies and businesses to make huge, costly changes in some instances for a very small percentage of people is asinine.

The sense of entitlement people have today is baffling. 100 years ago, if you were deaf, you delt with it. You didn't sue and complain to everyone to try to make it so you could pretend you were normal.
 
Boomstick said:
OR, companies can tell the minority of people out there with issues to piss off. Just because you have some affliction does NOT make you entitled to everything normal people are. Life isn't fair and it sucks, I know. But forcing companies and businesses to make huge, costly changes in some instances for a very small percentage of people is asinine.

The sense of entitlement people have today is baffling. 100 years ago, if you were deaf, you delt with it. You didn't sue and complain to everyone to try to make it so you could pretend you were normal.
Click to expand...

Next time you want to travel, use a horse. You're not entitled to automobiles because your feet or horse takes too long. What? It takes too long? Too bad, 100 years ago you dealt with it. Life isn't fair and it sucks, I know.
 
Azhar said:
Next time you want to travel, use a horse. You're not entitled to automobiles because your feet or horse takes too long. What? It takes too long? Too bad, 100 years ago you dealt with it. Life isn't fair and it sucks, I know.
Click to expand...

If you can't afford or are unable to operate an automobile but can afford and operate a horse...then yes...ride the horse.
 
txaggies07 said:
If you can't afford or are unable to operate an automobile but can afford and operate a horse...then yes...ride the horse.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I'm being sarcastic. I'm a very reasonable person, unlike a bunch of heartless jackasses in this thread.

It's one thing to plea for government to stay out of corporate affairs, but it's another for people to diss the handicap and tell them to shove it and deal with it.

For shame, even Steve's mother is blind. Show some fucking respect.
 
Azhar said:
Trust me, I'm being sarcastic. I'm a very reasonable person, unlike a bunch of heartless jackasses in this thread.

It's one thing to plea for government to stay out of corporate affairs, but it's another for people to diss the handicap and tell them to shove it and deal with it.

For shame, even Steve's mother is blind. Show some fucking respect.
Click to expand...

So the answer is to bend over backward to accommodate everyone who is in some minority because they can't use a service as it's presented to them? Bullshit! Can't watch movies through online streaming video? We have these things called DVDs that will give you what you want in a format that you can use. Hell, Netflix will even ship them to you! I mean gimme a freakin' break, what's next? Sue Google because they don't make special efforts to subtitle every video on Youtube?

And while you may label me a "heartless jackass" I am a heartless jackass with deaf friends, three of them in fact, and they all feel the same way. They don't want people to treat them different or make pains to accommodate them beyond reasonable means.
 
Dwango said:
So the answer is to bend over backward to accommodate everyone who is in some minority because they can't use a service as it's presented to them? Bullshit! Can't watch movies through online streaming video? We have these things called DVDs that will give you what you want in a format that you can use. Hell, Netflix will even ship them to you! I mean gimme a freakin' break, what's next? Sue Google because they don't make special efforts to subtitle every video on Youtube?

And while you may label me a "heartless jackass" I am a heartless jackass with deaf friends, three of them in fact, and they all feel the same way. They don't want people to treat them different or make pains to accommodate them beyond reasonable means.
Click to expand...

That went right over your head, didn't it?

Go back and read what I said a little more slower.
 
Ualdayan said:
I once lived near somebody who had a disability sticker on their car because they were legally blind. Apparently he could make out vague shapes or something so they deemed him disabled based on it, yet still gave him a license to drive and a disabled sticker for his car.
Click to expand...

If someone is legally blind WTF are they doing driving?
 
Kaitian said:
The Tea Party mantra does not work here since this has been in effect for 2 decades now. Equal Access of the law means Equal Access. Every state mandates that as well. Your place of employment for example wherever you work at is more likely than not to also mandate "Equal Access". Contrary to what you think in your imaginary mind, people actually comply with this and do not have a problem with this. This so called "massive government bureaucracy" does not exist, rather it gives authority to local U.S. Attorney's to take authority. The ADA only creates the means to have people voluntarily comply with the law and then address gaps which are empowered to people who are in disadvantaged situations ie buying into contracts which is unfairly used against them, unable to pay bills over phone because banks refuses to use any other methods, ordering products and being ridiculed for it, etc are some of the examples.
This example is completely justified and there are many more cases found here. http://www.ada.gov/enforce.htm I honestly don't give a damn if you go "HURF BLURF, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THE TEA PARTY BELIEVES IN!"
Click to expand...

You completely ignored my question, where is the line? Oh, and a "local U.S. Attorney" is still a federal government employee. I have a problem with the corruption and shaming mindset going on in a lot of ADA lawsuits but I support equal access to certain things. Mandating them, again however is very very problematic because it leads to corruption by government and legal warfare. Suing netflix over subtitles is far far different then worrying about bank services for the disabled.


"The ADA only creates the means to have people voluntarily comply with the law and then address gaps which are empowered to people who are in disadvantaged situations"

Its not voluntary when if you don't do it, you end up sued in civil court and/or criminal court.
 
Ranulfo said:
You completely ignored my question, where is the line? Oh, and a "local U.S. Attorney" is still a federal government employee. I have a problem with the corruption and shaming mindset going on in a lot of ADA lawsuits but I support equal access to certain things. Mandating them, again however is very very problematic because it leads to corruption by government and legal warfare. Suing netflix over subtitles is far far different then worrying about bank services for the disabled.


"The ADA only creates the means to have people voluntarily comply with the law and then address gaps which are empowered to people who are in disadvantaged situations"

Its not voluntary when if you don't do it, you end up sued in civil court and/or criminal court.
Click to expand...

If it makes my life easier, I support it.

Don't like it? I simply do not care. But you are gonna pay for it.
 
Fail said:
If it makes my life easier, I support it.

Don't like it? I simply do not care. But you are gonna pay for it.
Click to expand...

By pay for it, I mean it's going to come out of the tax dollars you pay.
 
Fail said:
By pay for it, I mean it's going to come out of the tax dollars you pay.
Click to expand...

What? The tax dollars? You mean like when the blind pays taxes too, they also contribute to the roads and streets they can never drive on?!

Shh, don't try and make sense in this forum. It's completely futile until it benefits them.
 
Azhar said:
What? The tax dollars? You mean like when the blind pays taxes too, they also contribute to the roads and streets they can never drive on?!

Shh, don't try and make sense in this forum. It's completely futile until it benefits them.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point, they can come up here, preach and be anti-ADA and anti-deaf and whatnot all they want, their tax dollars will be spent on making my life easier regardless.

That's what's really futile to argue with :p
 
Azhar said:
Next time you want to travel, use a horse. You're not entitled to automobiles because your feet or horse takes too long. What? It takes too long? Too bad, 100 years ago you dealt with it. Life isn't fair and it sucks, I know.
Click to expand...

This makes very little sense, and is a poor comparison. Apples and oranges I might even go so far as to say.

Im not saying having issues doesn't suck, I have my own, but I don't go around forcing other people and companies to bend over backwards, and lose money just to placate me. It would be totally selfish of me to even think of doing that.

If you think 98% of hte people should bend for the other 2%, then you have entitlement issues along with selfishness issues. People like you are the reason peanuts are banned everywhere. Becase a tiny percentage of the population has a peanut allergy EVERYONE has to suffer.

Sorry, it shouldn't and (mostly) doesn't, and that's a good thing. YOu have zero idea of how messed up I am, and I don't ask anyone to do anything different for me because it's arrogant and selfish to do so. Why should others be put out because I'm think I should be treated normally even though I'm not.

Now, if people/companies cater to the disabled on their own, then that's great. Forcing them to do so makes you selfish and arrogant.
 
Boomstick said:
This makes very little sense, and is a poor comparison. Apples and oranges I might even go so far as to say.

Im not saying having issues doesn't suck, I have my own, but I don't go around forcing other people and companies to bend over backwards, and lose money just to placate me. It would be totally selfish of me to even think of doing that.

If you think 98% of hte people should bend for the other 2%, then you have entitlement issues along with selfishness issues. People like you are the reason peanuts are banned everywhere. Becase a tiny percentage of the population has a peanut allergy EVERYONE has to suffer.

Sorry, it shouldn't and (mostly) doesn't, and that's a good thing. YOu have zero idea of how messed up I am, and I don't ask anyone to do anything different for me because it's arrogant and selfish to do so. Why should others be put out because I'm think I should be treated normally even though I'm not.

Now, if people/companies cater to the disabled on their own, then that's great. Forcing them to do so makes you selfish and arrogant.
Click to expand...

What renders your opinion meaningless is the sheer fact that you are still gonna pay for my life to be made easier with your tax dollars, irrespective of how much you bloviate against it.

I'd say it's a good use of our tax dollars too, I mean, everyone gets a slice, why not me?
 
Dwango said:
So the answer is to bend over backward to accommodate everyone who is in some minority because they can't use a service as it's presented to them? Bullshit! Can't watch movies through online streaming video? We have these things called DVDs that will give you what you want in a format that you can use. Hell, Netflix will even ship them to you! I mean gimme a freakin' break, what's next? Sue Google because they don't make special efforts to subtitle every video on Youtube?

And while you may label me a "heartless jackass" I am a heartless jackass with deaf friends, three of them in fact, and they all feel the same way. They don't want people to treat them different or make pains to accommodate them beyond reasonable means.
Click to expand...

I label you a reasonable person. Everything you said is correct. Anyone who says otherwise is the arrogant/selfish ones, but they'll deny it and call you arrogant and selfish all day long.

It's the same problem most people have nowadays. This is how a lot of people think: "because I'm the most important thing in my world, I should be the most important thing in YOUR world too!" "ME ME ME ME ME".

And when you even try to friendly hint at them that this isn't how things work they blow up and go apeshit on you.
 
Azhar said:
What? The tax dollars? You mean like when the blind pays taxes too, they also contribute to the roads and streets they can never drive on?!

Shh, don't try and make sense in this forum. It's completely futile until it benefits them.
Click to expand...

You advocate blind people using roads (driving) and your trying to say others aren't making sense??!!


bwaahahahahahhahaha. Give me a break buddy. :rolleyes:
 
I'm in agreement with the people who thinks that you shouldn't be forced to bend over backwards.

If you are government funded, then yes you should. But if you're private, like Netflix, you shouldn't have to. Road work, government. Movies online, private. Driveway, private. Public buildings, not government but not private.

Have these guys tried to sue movie theaters for not putting subs in every movie they showed yet? Cuz I sure as hell don't remember seeing subs the last time I went to the movies.
 
Fail said:
Exactly my point, they can come up here, preach and be anti-ADA and anti-deaf and whatnot all they want, their tax dollars will be spent on making my life easier regardless.

That's what's really futile to argue with :p
Click to expand...

I'm not anti-deaf. I'm pro-private property rights. It's a very distinct difference.

I'm not going to go out of my way to make things difficult for a deaf, or otherwise disabled person (this would be anti-disabled), however I'm not going to go out of my way to make things extra special easy for them either. You get what everyone else does, and that's it. We've all got our problems, I never beg people to cater to me. Instead of of being such and entitled pussy, man up and grow a pair - take care of yourself through your own actions, not trying to force others to take care of your issues for you.

Also just because that's how it is now, doesn't mean that's how it should be. It's not futile to argue, since it keeps it in discussion, though I would argue that such discussion here is useless, discussion in the courts and government is not. The tides are turning, hopefully we can reign in this wasteful spending on legislating luxury products across the board.
 
Boomstick said:
You advocate blind people using roads (driving) and your trying to say others aren't making sense??!!


bwaahahahahahhahaha. Give me a break buddy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That's not what he said, clearly your reading comprehension is below par. So what you're trying to say is that despite me and Azhar being deaf, we're better educated than you are? Well, you don't have to go and say it, your reading comprehension fail here is all we need to see.

Here, I'll save you a trip on the short bus to remedial reading classes.

What? This reflects sheer amazement for the common sense in my post, and he so perfectly replied to in such a laconic fashion.

The tax dollars? Everyone pays taxes, or they should, but disabled or not, if you have a job, you pay taxes, that is the law, with very few exceptions, if any.

You mean like when the blind pays taxes too, they also contribute to the roads and streets they can never drive on?! Newsflash, blind people have jobs, and because they have jobs, they become taxpayers, and being taxpayers, their money gets spent on a wide variety of things that might not neccessarily benefit them. Such as the very roads you drive on to get you around that they cannot drive on, because the blind are barred from driving, YET, being taxpayers, they still pay for the roads they cannot drive on.

Pretty simplistic, there's nothing complex about his message.
 
Fail said:
You mean like when the blind pays taxes too, they also contribute to the roads and streets they can never drive on?! Newsflash, blind people have jobs, and because they have jobs, they become taxpayers, and being taxpayers, their money gets spent on a wide variety of things that might not neccessarily benefit them. Such as the very roads you drive on to get you around that they cannot drive on, because the blind are barred from driving, YET, being taxpayers, they still pay for the roads they cannot drive on.
Click to expand...

Are you f-ing crazy? The blind don't benefit from roads?

Do they all plow their own fields and grow their own food, or do they buy things at a grocery store that arrived there by truck? I could go on and on listing the ways the roads benefit people who don't drive (due to disability or otherwise), but that would be largely academic. The public road system improves *everyone's* life in multiple ways. I can't say the same thing for the CC system.
 
Boomstick said:
You advocate blind people using roads (driving) and your trying to say others aren't making sense??!!


bwaahahahahahhahaha. Give me a break buddy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

3 days. I'm guessing you got banned and came back here to continue to preach about entitlements.

Or do you normally sign up on forums and badmouth everyone?
 
canna said:
Are you f-ing crazy? The blind don't benefit from roads?

Do they all plow their own fields and grow their own food, or do they buy things at a grocery store that arrived there by truck? I could go on and on listing the ways the roads benefit people who don't drive (due to disability or otherwise), but that would be largely academic. The public road system improves *everyone's* life in multiple ways. I can't say the same thing for the CC system.
Click to expand...

I was clearly quite specific what I was referring to, and that is the blind are paying for roads that THEY CANNOT DRIVE ON.

I said nothing else.

You're simply making a mountain out of a molehill. Don't bother arguing semantics, because there's nothing to be gained by that except petty arguments over choice of words. Those kind of arguments don't do anything to further the discussion, instead, they detract from it.
 
Fail said:
I was clearly quite specific what I was referring to, and that is the blind are paying for roads that THEY CANNOT DRIVE ON.

I said nothing else.

You're simply making a mountain out of a molehill. Don't bother arguing semantics, because there's nothing to be gained by that except petty arguments over choice of words. Those kind of arguments don't do anything to further the discussion, instead, they detract from it.
Click to expand...

Roads are funded by user fees. Unless blind peopel buy tons of gasoline, hey aren't paying for them.
 
BoogerBomb said:
That varies by state as to how much of the gas tax goes to roads. But yes some of the gas tax does go to road maintenance but its not the only source.
Click to expand...

Precisely, it's funny how people really believe what our politicians say about how our funds will be used.
 
Fail said:
Precisely, it's funny how people really believe what our politicians say about how our funds will be used.
Click to expand...

It's really not relevant if during the year the tax money from gas taxes get diverted from to something else that would usually be paid for with the general fund, and then later on the state pulls the money from the general fund to pay for road work. The only thing that's important is how much money was collected in gasoline taxes vs. how much was expended on road maintenance / construction.
 
canna said:
It's really not relevant if during the year the tax money from gas taxes get diverted from to something else that would usually be paid for with the general fund, and then later on the state pulls the money from the general fund to pay for road work. The only thing that's important is how much money was collected in gasoline taxes vs. how much was expended on road maintenance / construction.
Click to expand...

Disabled people who have jobs pay taxes, that's all you really need to know.
 
Fail said:
Disabled people who have jobs pay taxes, that's all you really need to know.
Click to expand...

TeaBagger/Objectivist/Libhurrrtarian/Sociopath at 30: I DON'T WANNA PAY FOR YOUR ENTITLEMENTS!

TeaBagger/Objectivist/Libhurrrtarian/Sociopath at 65: I GOT MINE, FUCK YOU! The Gub'mint better stay out of Medicare!
 
Fail said:
Disabled people who have jobs pay taxes, that's all you really need to know.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that life is so simple for you. Your argument was that blind people don't use roads, so they shouldn't pay for them. Sometimes people really do live up to their names. Let's hope you don't name your child Jeeves.

I'm guessing that math skills aren't your strong set. If the amount of money earmarked for road maintenance that is collected via gas taxes matches or exceeds the amount of money spent on such work, then BLIND PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS THEY "DON'T USE".
 
canna said:
I'm glad that life is so simple for you. Your argument was that blind people don't use roads, so they shouldn't pay for them. Sometimes people really do live up to their names. Let's hope you don't name your child Jeeves.

I'm guessing that math skills aren't your strong set. If the amount of money earmarked for road maintenance that is collected via gas taxes matches or exceeds the amount of money spent on such work, then BLIND PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING TAXES TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS THEY "DON'T USE".
Click to expand...

I cannot take your post seriously at all, for one simple reason, where did I say that blind people SHOULD NOT PAY FOR ROADS?

Seriously, where'd you learn reading comprehension and logic? Cause you're failing at both.

This isn't even entertaining anymore.
 
techrat said:
TeaBagger/Objectivist/Libhurrrtarian/Sociopath at 30: I DON'T WANNA PAY FOR YOUR ENTITLEMENTS!

TeaBagger/Objectivist/Libhurrrtarian/Sociopath at 65: I GOT MINE, FUCK YOU! The Gub'mint better stay out of Medicare!
Click to expand...

I'm 29, and I did watch American Psycho, that's all I will admit to for now :p
 
Fail said:
I cannot take your post seriously at all, for one simple reason, where did I say that blind people SHOULD NOT PAY FOR ROADS?

Seriously, where'd you learn reading comprehension and logic? Cause you're failing at both.

This isn't even entertaining anymore.
Click to expand...



You mean like when the blind pays taxes too, they also contribute to the roads and streets they can never drive on?! Newsflash, blind people have jobs, and because they have jobs, they become taxpayers, and being taxpayers, their money gets spent on a wide variety of things that might not neccessarily (sic) benefit them. Such as the very roads you drive on to get you around that they cannot drive on, because the blind are barred from driving, YET, being taxpayers, they still pay for the roads they cannot drive on.
Click to expand...


You're implying that blind people pay taxes to maintain roads. The taxes to maintain roads are built into the cost of gasoline, not income taxes. So unless for some reason they are lugging 5 gallon jugs of gasoline around daily that they filled at a station for god knows what reason considering they can't drive, they aren't paying for the cost of roads outside of the built in cost of transportation of goods that they purchase at a store.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top