DU'ers Prejudice Against Disabled Unmasked (Let's Learn A Lesson)

[KittyWampus]

Threads exist in LBN/GD discussing a California student suing Target for not having it's website accessible to Text Reading programs for the blind. The article makes no mention of Plaintiff seeking monetary compensation, as far as I know.

Many DU'ers are making quips around the fact that "life isn't always fair" and THIS is the perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit.

My intent isn't to point out the merits of lawsuit but to draw attention to the latent bias some of us have toward the disabled. Maybe we can take a look at that tendency, recognize it and grow past it. We all have our blind spots and biases that we aren't yet aware of. But as Progressives, isn't it reasonable to expect us to TRY and become aware of our own prejudices and eliminate them?

There is the American Disabilities Act. It is reasonable to expect large corporations to make their facilities accessible, within limits, to the disabled.

Large corporations benefit greatly from our tax dollars and have a devastating effect on small business owners and communities. The LEAST they can do is accommodate the disabled in our midst. Especially when the means of accommodation are as easy as making their websites compatible for Text Reading programs. Yes, it may take some time and money to hire someone to write that code and implement it, but large corporations HAVE the resources to do it.

Let's take a look at the way we flippantly suggest the disabled ask too much of large corporations and perhaps see a bias that we didn't know existed... and move past that. The more the disabled are able to interact in our society the better off we all are.

Target is really stupid for:

A. Not retooling it's websites when it's relatively easy to do so
B. Trumpeting its effort to do so as a Public Relations opportunity

But Target donates its money to the GOP (I think) and like most all corporations would rather fight a lawsuit then do the right thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2095617&mesg_id=2095617

[Bunny]

1. Well, I agree with you, but good luck getting that point across to

some folks.

[sui generis]

2. prejudice is the wrong word

We are not bigots.

To explain something succinctly and effectively it is always better to start of with a positive premise, rather than a negative accusation.

Having said that, I do agree with the principle of your post. I would add that it is more effective to have a single universal standard established for this problem. That way authoring tools and even third party software could easily be used on any website to generate a disabled-access mode without requiring tremendous additional training and overhead.

There are already some loose standards that Palm and other palmtop browsers use to simplify display (although they mostly suck); I wonder if the web development industry itself could set these standards for upfront design and move it forward from the "top down" rather than one company at a time.

[KittyWampus]

8. Respectfully, I didn't use the word "bigot". Prejudice Means Pre-Judge

when we come to an issue or subject we don't know enough about, we may reach for opinions that were not consciously acquired through careful investigation but absorbed unconsciously from less then reliable sources.

Prejudice isn't necessarily a "bad" thing if we are made aware of it and use it as a reason to learn more about a particular subject.

We ALL have some prejudices we haven't been made aware of... unless we are fully enlightened.

[sui generis]

13. thanks

I know usually it carries only the most negative of connotations. sorry to put words in your mouth -

[KittyWampus]

17. Well, maybe I unconsiously WANTED to be slightly inflammatory?

just to try and get people to read the thread? :)

Maybe I can figure how to put the word Nader/Chavez/Castro into the title. :D

[MostlyLurks]

3. Perhaps there's a bit of a disconnect between the two camps.

I'm referring here to the thread to which you've linked. It seems there are two camps: the ones who wholeheartedly agree with the suit and those who disagree with the suit *but not necessarily with accomodation*.

What I mean is this: it seems that the man filing the suit wants to "change the world". By that, I mean he's found a deficiency and wants to correct that. That's admirable.

However, the means he's using to do it seems unrelated to the change he wants to make. Rather than trying to "change the world", he's said he wants to change one very small member of that world. This is essentially like saying "screw the other blind people who shop at", idunno, "wal-mart.com". In other words, if he *really* thinks it's a huge problem then it's a huge problem for others who are blind and a problem that affects ANY internet businesses.

Think of it like this: 30 years ago, if a deaf person had sued ABC for not captioning their programs, I would have said "That's crazy" because why ABC and not NBC, ABC, PBS, etc.? Singling out one entity in a sea on similar competitors seems, well, off to me.

And yet here we are in 2006 and you can turn on close-captioning for any channel in America, on any modern TV, at any time and nobody would claim "well, that's nuts". Why the difference? Because the problem was recognized to be endemic to the system itself, not to one particular service provider. So rather than suing a broadcaster, some industrious souls got together and made it a law that affects all broadcasters and works to the benefit of all (affected) consumers. That's what should be done here - rather than a lawsuit that will legally bind only ONE member of the internet retail community, this guy should have started a campaign to create a new ADA act that has to do with on-line businesses. That would be the right approach, in my opinion.

So I think I fall into the "I disagree with the suit" camp but not because I disagree with the concept of accomodation. I disagree with it because ultimately it is the wrong way to solve a problem, and a way that will have no real teeth in the end (a statement I can explain in more detail if you'd like, but I'll try to keep this short).

Peace.

Mostly

On Edit: Many typos corrected. Many probably still remain.

[Bunny]

5. Why Target?

SNIP
Advocates for the blind said the lawsuit is a shot across the bow for retailers, newspapers and others who have Web sites the blind cannot use. They chose Target because of its popularity and because of a large number of complaints by blind patrons.
SNIP

It would be incredibly expensive to sue all retailers, so they chose what they felt would be the most effective way to get their message across.

Wrong way to solve the problem?
SNIP
Basrawi said the plaintiffs began negotiating with Target after writing the retailer in May 2005. But talks broke down last month, and the company, whom the attorney described as "one of the biggest offenders," declined to modify its Web site.
SNIP

They apparently attempted to talk to Target, but were rebuffed. What were they supposed to do at that point?

[MostlyLurks]

9. A lawsuit is not the answer.

Any result they get out of Target is completely non-binding vis a vis any other on-line retailer. Now, a victory may put pressure on retailers, or put a little writing on the wall, but it is in no way a "movement" victory. Every web site that failed to accomodate the blind would have to be sued in order to bring that pressure to bear. And then we're right back where we started: it's too expensive to sue them all, so that's basically a victory for them, isn't it? The argument that cost leads to suing only one summarily invalidates the idea that suing one does any good.

Let's say you decide to sue me, as an individual, because I didn't put a ramp in at my house. And let's say you win. Does that have any effect on my neighbor? No. Furthermore, by suing only me, you've guaranteed that it'll be more expensive for you in the long run because now you have to pursue legal action against EVERYBODY who exhibits the same behavior. And my neighbor may capitulate, but the stubborn bastard beside him might fold his arms and say "I've got deep pockets and it will cost me more to maintain the ramp and put it in that it will to fight your lawsuit using the attorneys I have on staff anyway". Now you're really in the red ink, and for all your trouble you've only managed to get a few people to accomodate you. And the ones who accomodated you are the smallest and least important members because they're the ones who can't afford to fight. Meanwhile, all the wealthiest and most powerful people in town have decided it's cheaper to drain your resources and make you go away than it will be to accomodate your demands long after you're dead. So you have effected very little real change.

On the other hand, you could work for a local, state or national law that would blanket all members of the community. Because it is a law, the weight and power of the government comes with it. That's a far, far better thing than having nothing more than your own pocketbook and threats of a lawsuit. People and corporation react very differently to federal laws than they do to provate lawsuits. At least at this point in time, corporations still have some fear of governmental agencies.

All the keys are right in reach where this is concerned: the article states that Target gets a lot of complaints from the blind and visually impaired. Target is one of the web's largest retailers. That means this is a large problem and there's a built-in bloc available to craft, suggest and lobby for legislation.

Sometimes a war isn't about what you're fighting for so much as how you fight it.

Mostly

[Bunny]

11. Yeah, I know it would be non-binding.

But if Target loses the case, a lot of retailers will want to avoid the same fate and will just modify their websites.

Getting a law enacted would take years, if ever. Maybe Target, when faced with a lawsuit, would just agree to settle the matter and change their website. Either way, accommodations get made - which is the desired result, isn't it?

[MostlyLurks]

15. Interesting bit of co-incidence.

In post #12 I happened to meander into a semi-rant about the need for immediate satisfaction of needs as an endemic problem to modern society. At the time, I felt it was not necessarily on-topic because speed had never been one of the arguments used in favor of this lawsuit. But, now that you've brought up speed of a lawsuit versus the slow pace of legislation, you might want to take a look at it.

As to the rest of what you wrote, I stand by my argument that threats of lawsuits are useless when you've already said that money was a factor in not suing other retailers besides Target. You can't have it both ways, saying "I'll sue only one because it's cheaper" and then turn and say "I'll sue anybody who doesn't toe the same line." It's an idle threat. It's like a guy beating up somebody and breaking his hand in the process, and then threatening to beat up everybody else too. At some point, one of those people is going to realize you've got two broken hands, and they're going to call your bluff, making the threat essentially useless.

Mostly

[KittyWampus]

19. Changing Or Writing Law Would Pit Disabled Against Corporations

who spend billions to have their lobbyists PREVENT change and maintain the status quo.

Stupid isn't it?

Corporations can just spend a relatively small amount of money to comply with laws or accomdate Americans but would rather HUGE amounts of money to keep status quo.

It's about power.

[MostlyLurks]

24. But you're forgetting about the power of popular perception.

Granted, there'd be a fight between the disabled advocates and the corporate advocates. And there'd be a clear money disadvantage for the disabled.

But politics is largely about perception and I'll wager any day that the average American, especially at this particular moment in our history, has a better and kinder perception of the disabled than they do of the corporations.

With the Enron and WorldCom scandals, high CEO pay, etc. companies are keeping their heads down and looking for ways to humanize themselves. I'd almost be willing to bet that
1) they wouldn't be willing to openly fight an on-line ADA act.
2) a few would openly embrace the opportunity to de-bastardize themselves by endorsing the act, especially those for whom the on-line side is not a big deal. Imagine how much hay Ford could make in public perception by coming out and saying "we endorse the on-line ADA and have already updated our sites to accomodate the vision impaired". Nevermind the fact that Ford isn't a significant e-retailer and that their site has little impact on the blind community. They'd get the good PR that comes with helping the less fortunate.

Of course, that's all speculative. But we'll never know because instead of making this into a national issue, it's been sequestered to the confines of a courtroom, where a corporation has relative assurance that they won't get a lot of public or press attention.

Additionally, I believe this allows them to "frame" the debate as one of those "frivolous lawsuits". That's one of the few memes where I believe the Republicans are on the right side of things: there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits. It's not that I agree with them that we need to limit citizen's acces to the courts, but I do believe that the lawsuit is being abused as a tool.

So now Target gets to use the "it's a frivolous lawsuit" meme to their advantage (A primary component in why the Republicans installed this meme is that it gives corporations cover by creating a built-in frame. Say what you want about the Republicans, they know how the game is played.). And they never have to fight the "Target unfair to the disabled" war on a national scale in the first place. A legislative campaign would put them on the defensive - they'd have to fight against something. This lawsuit doesn't do that, a built-in victory for them.

Mostly

[KittyWampus]

14. A Win Would Set Precident & Generate Incentive For Class Action

and the concept isn't to make ALL websites accessible. This legal action is aimed at large businesses that fall under certain categories... beginning with one of the worse offenders, Target.

It'd be great to see a political movement to make this binding Law so that individual cases and even class action cases don't need to be brought.

However, these two strategies aren't exclusive of each other.

Further, you forget this point:

Large corporations spend BILLIONS lobbying Congress. They have lobbyists working to keep our lawmakers set AGAINST the passage of legislation that would require websites be accomodating. Especially the Republican Congressional members.For some stupid, idiotic reason, Target/Walmart would rather spend those billions lobbying Congress to keep status quo then spending a few hundred thousand simply modifying their damn websites. It's about power.

[MostlyLurks]

20. A class action lawsuit does utterly nothing.

A class action suit would do nothing that the individual suit would.

A class action suit is when a group of affected people - blind users of Target's web site - get together to collectively sue for damages against that entity. Furthermore, class action suits are toothless when the class seeks no recompense for their "injuries". In other words, this suit is not fit for a class action. Not is any similar complaint likely to be fit for a class action.

Furthermore, a class, as far as I know, cannot "blanket" sue another class. Maybe there's a lawyer about who can give a definitive answer re: the use of class actions. I don't think it's possible that blind internet users could collectively sue all internet retailers, or even a group of internet retailers. The class must sue EACH party that injures them. So they'd have to sue Wal-Mart, and CostCo and Best Buy, etc. And then we're right back to my original argument: if it's too expensive to sue multiple companies, then eventually the companies are going to wise up and call your bluff, drain your pockets and kick you to the curb.

As to the idea that business lobbying would quash any movement: well, then how will the legal precendent hold up? If Target really wants to push the issue, then they'll appeal until they get a ruling in their favor, which then means the suing party has to re-appeal if they have the money, etc. etc. ad infinitum. Who do you think is going to win that cash game?

Simply put, the ADA got passed despite protests by business. The Federal government's own web standards dictate that their internal pages MUST accomodate the blind. Clearly, there's some cracks to the all powerful business lobby and clearly there's a nascent appreciation for the need to accomodate people in web browsing. The problem is that those cracks have to be exploited and made larger over time, and that's where I think a lot of people balk because they're happier with small victories quick than big victories slow.

If that's what you're going for - a temporary fix - then the lawsuit is a good way to go. But think about this: what happens when Target wins the suit (and I think they will, as there is no precedent for accomodation with respect to the internet AND Target is not violating the ADA)? Now you're really screwed because the precedent you sought ain't there and you have nothing to show for your troubles. All my eggs, meet my one basket.

Mostly

[Lolivia]

21. It could be binding

From the ADA:

(B) Integrated settings.--Goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual
with a disability in the most integrated setting appropriate to the
needs of the individual.

I would argue that a website is a service, privilege, or advantage, and that Target, and other business, are required by the Act to make their websites accessible to the blind. If the court ruled that way, it would mean that the ADA, a federal statute, requires ALL business, not just Target, to make its website available to the blind.

Single lawsuits are often how things change for the entire country. Examples include Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Brown v. Board of Education.

[MostlyLurks]

30. Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

OK, that's concrete, and a very apt argument. I agree with it and maybe it's the silver bullet that puts Target in violation of the ADA. Thank you.

I still say a revision or addendum to the ADA, specifically codifying on-line content, is a better way to go in the long run. That said, the above section of the ADA is going to be very hard to argue against for Target and other on-line businesses. Clearly, a web site is a facility or a service, depending on what's being offered.

Perhaps if THIS post had been made in the earlier thread, some of the nay-sayers would have their minds changed. See, this is why I argue things. Arguing is good. Arguments are the crucial element in learning.

Thanks Lolivia.

Mostly

[Bake]

29. Non-binding? Yes. Ineffective? Hell no.

I would be willing to bet that every major retailer (and other businesses as well) that operates a web site has already taken note of the Target lawsuit. They are already looking at the cost of AVOIDING such a suit (by correcting its website, e.g.) and comparing that to the cost of defending a suit.

Lawsuits ARE effective. Just ask Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Bake

[mom cat]

7. Perhaps the person filing the suit did not happen to find a lawyer who

would be able to mount a class action suit. I like the method that you have suggested and would encourage you to take it on as a project and then encourage you to encourage that blind person to join you in that endeavor. Until then, please do not disparage the attempts of a disabled person to get the assist ive technology that is needed.
You really do have a good idea and I hope that you can pursue it.

[MostlyLurks]

12. It's not about a law suit at all, class action or otherwise.

It's about legislation. Disabled people already have advocacy groups in place and this person could easily have gotten together a group of like-minded people (the web makes this astoundingly easy today) to form an advocacy community who could then bring this issue to the lobbying groups for the disabled. Those groups could then lobby members of Congress, get a bill introduced, etc.

The problem with that, of course, is that it's not an immediate fix and I think that's what pretty much everybody wants these days, regardless of what their passion issues are. It seems very few people - and I'd include myself in that - think like MLK did when he said "I may not get there with you". For him, he saw that his cause was something it might take decades or centuries to accomplish, but that made it no less worth fighting for. Sadly, I think the attitude that's pervasive today is one of "if I can't get it done in time to benefit me, then it's not worth doing". This, I believe, is why there's so often a rush toward a quick solution, like a lawsuit, for a problem that is far too large to be dealt with overnight. None of that, of course, is germane to this discussion, but I write where my mind takes me.

A new ADA affecting on-line commerce would undoubtedly take a while to gain momentum, change minds and so forth. But it would have long-term lasting benefits that, I believe, a lawsuit will and can not.

That said, maybe this is where this is leading. Maybe this suit will kick advocacy groups in the ass and they'll start working on an on-line ADA or something. Maybe this will get the attention of some Congressperson who decides s/he wants to codify and make official web-standards for text readers. Maybe, hopefully that will happen. But it all seems a bit circuitous.

Mostly

On Edit: Corrected typo.

[mom cat]

28. Since when is a lawsuit a "quick fix"? They can take years! Are you

blind? do you know what it is like for a disabled person to do online activism? Your suggestions do not show much understanding for those with disabilities. If you are not willing to roll up your sleves and pitch in with solving this problem, please do not criticize those who are trying to do something. As a disabled person, I am constantly being given "solutions" by the clueless who do not understand and who do not care to find out why their ideas are not tentable.
The govenor of the state would have veto power over any legislation, and he just executed a disabled man. Maybe, in that state, at this time, the courts are the best avenue!

[MostlyLurks]

33. You have misunderstood.

1. What does executing a disabled person have to do with anything? Disabled don't mean innocent and it don't mean the same as insane or mentally incapable. Personally, I take the rather expansive view that a blind or deaf person can be just as capable of murder as me, so they should be just as susceptible to the DP as me. Would that the DP were illegal, I'd have that as my druthers. But if I can be fried for murder, there's no reason the same shouldn't be true of a guilty deaf, blind or paraplegic person.

2. A governor has veto power over legislation, but not over the law. Once put into place, the governor is as beholden to the law as any citizen. S/he could not arbitrarily decide that a law, once passed, would not be binding. You're mistaking the process of ratifying the law for the process of enforcing the law.

3. I have no idea what it's like for a disabled person to do anything, as I'm blessed not to be disabled. I said that a bunch of like-minded people could form an advocacy group and to do so would be easy using the 'net. You'll notice I never said "like-sighted". It seems to me you're grafting something onto it in which only blind people could be a part of that group. I never said that. I said it would be easy to find like-minded people - i.e. those who believe in accomodation for the blind - using the web. Granted, many would be blind but certainly there'd be the relatives and friends of the blind who could do some of the work, would form a significant part of the bloc, could help other blind people join and participate in the movement.

4. Finally, in response to: "As a disabled person, I am constantly being given "solutions" by the clueless who do not understand and who do not care to find out why their ideas are not tentable.". I wasn't aware that this thread was intended only for the disabled. You see, when it told me that all DU'ers were prejudiced, I kind of felt like it might be, you know, open to all DU'ers to read. You'll also notice that at no fucking time did I ever resort to name-calling or irrational childish stupid shit (until just now, of course). I was attempting to provide some insight into why there may be valid misgivings about this lawsuit both practically and tactically.

Had I know it was primarily intended as a black-slapping "aren't we soooooo fucking correct in our presumptions" thread, I would have stayed away.

Given that I'm a clueless, able-bodied fool, I'll take your suggestion and stay the fuck away from the disabled from now on, lest I offend them with rational discourse and a failure to innately agree with every Goddamned thing they say.

Mostly

[Bake]

32. If you sue under the ADA, the court can/must interpret

and apply the statute. The court will look at, among other things, congressional intent in passing the ADA, and decide whether the statute applies to the situation in question.

You start this in the U.S. District Court, since you're suing under a federal statute. Regardless of the judgment of the trial court (i.e., the District Court), the losing side is likely to appeal to the US Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court will then decide as a matter of law whether the statute applies to the facts of the case. At that point, the only appeal left is to SCOTUS. SCOTUS agrees to hear only a small fraction of the cases actually sent to it.

With a favorable ruling, you have the same effect as writing new legislation. I suppose some would call that legislating from the bench. My bad.

Bake

[mom cat]

4. As someone who has struggled with acquired disabilities, I can

heartily endorse your post with a K&R. I have run into so much ill informed cruelty and realize that most people do not realize that their whole world can change in a split second and that they would then become the targets of demeaning and insulting put downs and degradation. I now know a lot of people with disabilities for whom every day is a struggle that most people could not imagine.I hope that your post will help some people stop and think a minute before criticizing anyone who needs adaptive equipment to make it through the day and to try to become a more productive member of society. I know people who are unable to work, but still struggle and make real contributions to volunteer work and web activism that are made possible through adaptive equipment. Requests for adaptive equipment are not frivolous, but are central to the wellbeing and productivity of millions of Americans. If you do not need such equipment yet, count yourself lucky and have compassion for those who do. It really could be YOU a second from now. I know. I found out the hard way. ( Rear end collision where the driver hit the gas instead of the brakes. I was stopped at a red light when he plowed into be, totaling my truck, bending the frame and nearly totaling me. I am significantly better, but have impairments that will last the rest of my life. There is nothing I could have done to prevent it, and of course, the driver was under insured. I hope that none of you ever have to go through something like this).
Thanks for the post that gave me a chance to say this.

mom cat

[zanne]

6. I hear you, momcat.

I park in Handicapped Parking spots because I have advanced heart disease and CMT (Charcot Marie Tooth diesease). The only outward sign of my disability is a cane. I wear braces that are concealed by my pantlegs. On very cold or very hot days, my heart can't handle much exertion, so I try not to walk too far. You wouldn't believe some of the looks I get from other people in the parking lot. It's enough to make a person paranoid. I just wish one of those people would just ASK me how I'm disabled, and I would tell them.

[mom cat]

10. I get the same treatment all the time. My disabilities are not readily

noticed by the average bear and I get a lot of strange looks for using accomodations for people with disabilities. I think that some of the strange looks are due to unconcious fears that other people have about their own vulnerability to future disability and suffering. For some people, seeing someone with disabilitiesis like seeing someone with leprosy ... they unconciously want to move away from something they do not understand and fear. Several times, I had kids stop and ask what was wrong. Invariably, the parents would try to silence them ... perhaps in a way of trying to be polite. I would always say "it is ok to ask. They are just curious". Then I would jve as brief ans non traumatizing explanation as possible and assure the child that I was getting better ... which I was.

I an rambling again ... sorry.
I am also sorry for what you are going through. I had never heard of Charcot Marie Tooth disease. If you don't mind explaining, exactly what is it?

[zanne]

35. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease is...

A form of Muscular Dystrophy that affects the lower legs and feet. It rarely necessitates the use of a wheelchair. I wear braces on my lower legs and use a cane, but that's about as bad as it gets.

[RebelOne]

18. I can't understand people giving you strange looks if they see

you are walking with a cane. And I am sure that you must have a handicapped plate or sticker on your car.

[mom cat]

31. People have an irrational fear of the disabled which turns into hostility.

I have had too many stories, but perhaps this one will suffice. I know a blind woman who was walking along a main street in the Boston area in broad daylight. A car full of young men drove by and threatened to rape her using disgustingly graphic detail. She said that it had happened a number of times.
Blind females are sexually assaulted three times as often as sighted ones.
I have had people yell at me from cars "Can't you move any faster?" I went up to one of the cars and said: "No I can't. I wish I could. I hope you never have happen to you what happened to me!"

[porphyrian]

16. Society is prejudiced against the disabled.

First, I'm not saying that you are wrong in arguing for internet accessibility. As a hack web designer, I know how easy it is to check one of the free online accessibility evaluation tools listed on the Web Accessibility Initiative website (http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/existingtools.html#Evaluation) to bring the code into compliance, and to think that any megacorporation like Target can't spare the extra day's pay to fix their website is simply obnoxious bullshit. I just don't think we have a higher percentage of prejudice here than in any other substrata of society. In fact, I would argue that people here are less prejudiced against any group defined by physical characteristics, such as race or disability. The greatest amount of prejudice here is ideological, and unapologetically so. I don't doubt that there are those who have made insensitive comments about the disabled here, but I wouldn't automatically assume we have a plague of disabled-haters based on this.

[KittyWampus]

23. It's not "disabled-hatrer" though. But A LOT of DU'ers are posting

opinions in two threads that are very much uninformed... and based on ideas gotten without fully investigating the issue.

Many DU'ers are spouting off about the case basing their comments on pre-judgements made without their even realising it.

And by a lot, I mean about maybe a quater of respondents.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. I Read The Whole Thread

I don't see any prejudice or bigotry. Nobody is considering that young man inferior because of his sightlessness. There are just people questioning the validity of the lawsuit. Why is that prejudicial?

Yeah there are a couple of snarky comments, but you said the prejudice of "DU" is unmasked. I don't see it in that thread.
The Professor

[KittyWampus]

26. Excuse Me? The Snarky Comments Blatantly Implied The Plaintiff

was pursuing a case that had no merit and should just suck it up and stop complaining.

Many DU'ers were simply offering an opinion based on uninformed opinions gotten without even a cursory examination of the issue and facts involved.

That is the DEFINTION of prejudice.

Here's some uninformed comments from that thread:

"Uhhh....are they supposed to invent a Braille monitor?"

Here's the reply that EXPLAINS you don't need a "Braille Monitor"

"Actually there are many text to speech programs"

Wouldn't it have been nice if the snarky DU'er had informed themselves before offering their "opinion" which basically denigrates the lawsuit.?

........................................................................



"Life isn't always fair- Maybe the student should sue the California DMV as well. I mean, it's really not fair that blind people aren't allowed to drive like everyone else.

"Good point. I cannot imagine how all disabilities can be perfectly accommodated."

1. No one is asking CA DMV to make its website accessible to the blind.
2. Poster is clearly trying to be funny by pointing out blind people can't drive.
3. Although blind people MAY work for someone who DOES need to access DMV website as part of a job. Or a blind parent MAY need to access DMV website for her child.
4. No one asks that all disabilities be perfectly accomodated
5. The facts here are that "The web is easily made accessible to the blind"
........................................................................

"another reason why good lawsuits get screwed ...frivolous bullshit why don't the deaf sue Sirius radio?"

Hmmm, I'll bet there are programs that can convert audible signals on the web or radio into text! And I bet it'd be do-able for larger corporations especially like Clear Channel.
.................................................................

"It isn't difficult to cure but it *is* a frivolous lawsuit. I agree it is quite easy to build this support in when creating a web site but the idea of sueing a big pocket store who hasn't done so is pure greed."

1. The article doesn't even say Plaintiff is going for money or if money will be earmarked for class action or political action. Poster makes a judgement that is not based on facts.
2. Lawsuits are one way to effect social change by creating financial incentive for corporations to act on an issue.
3. GREED is when corporations spend billions lobbying Congress to keep status quo rather then spending thousands implementing changes that would help a segment of society.

........................................................................

"I feel for the blind. But what's next? Are they going to sue the art museums because they can not enjoy the arts? I mean, some disabilities are such that it's very difficult to do certain things"
.......................................................................

"You know in a perfect freaking world every person of every nuance would have every accomodation. The world ain't perfect and people are not entitled to whatever they want, whenever they want."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Here's some responses from DU'er who took the time to THINK about the issue:

"A retail store's web site is no different than a "brick and mortar" store to the visually impaired. Computers and the Internet are vital tools for the these people. Cutting off access to sites is no different than not allowing someone with a wheelchair into the local Target.
The visually impaired is the largest single group of disabled in this country and most i know including me are very politically active. Many of the comments i have seen in this thread portray a very un-progressive view of the disabled"

"Many Stores offer "personal shoppers" for the visually impaired. That read labels for customers say what you will but Wal-mart does this nicely for me. Retail stores are required to offer "reasonable accommodations" for people with disabilities.

This suit will end up being a ADA issue truest me and the main question will be if stores will be required to offer the same type of accessibility to their websits that they do for their physical stores."

[ProfessorGAC]

27. How Is That Prejudicial?

And how do a few comments expose all of DU? That was my question. I admitted there were snarky comments, but i don't see how that exposes anything about DU.

Also, if the comment says the case has no merit, that's an opinion on the legal issue. I saw many there that said they were arguing with the method, not the point.
The Professor

[Ioo]

25. I AM DISABLED, and Sorry, Life is not fair...

You know, I think the law suit is a joke...

Look, life is not fair, and that is one of the biggest issues with the Dems as a whole, you can not ALWAYS force life to be fair. I was in a wheelchair for some time (I am my feet now, for now) and I had a right to expect access to most places of "PUBLIC", but I did not go nuts when I could not get into EVERY place, that was life...

And to that end, I do not thing that the WWW is a place of public in the same way. The fact is almost all the ADA is for 2 reasons, discrimination in the work place, and PUBLIC safety. In short that ramp is there now so you can get in, but so you can get out!

If we were to take this issue to it's logical conclusion, and from what I read we SHOULD.

Why are there not Braille on EVERY PRICE TAG in every store?

Should we have to hire someone to stand under every sign hanging from the store to inform people of the "Spring sale"

Short people have an issue with the top shelf, should we place all items on the floor?

Why not have a "Blind people driving" lane?

Maybe we should force dairy free cows for people that want to eat cheese but have an allergy to milk.

I mean this is the Logic you are using, that a person with disabilities should be able to do anything a non disabled person should do, and that is never going to happen.

Look, I am disabled. I expect a chair at work that I can LOCK the back on. I expect to be able to take a crap when I need to in a stall I can use. I also ask for some level of respect from my boss if I say to him, look I need to work from home in the AM" (I have a job that I can do that).

I mean, I do not mean to sound like an ass, but this whole "Make life fair for all" crap is what makes us look dumb to the rest of the nation, because in this case, we are...

[mom cat]

What the person in the lawsuit is asking for is readillt available

technology and could have easilly been provided. The person in queation is not asking for"driving lanes for the blind"! What an outlandish comment. I am old enough to remember some of the brutal comments made about people in wheelchairs who wanted to be able to go into public places. You would have thought they were asking for all the oil in the middle east to be restricted for powering wheel chairs.
I have also found that even among people with disabilities, there is profound ignorance of the challenges faced by people with other disabilities. I am glad that you are improving and are "on your feet". Please do not judge the efforts of others who are trying to get on theirs.

[TahitiNut]

34. The End of Discussion: "If You Disagree, You're A Bigot"

You say your intent is "to draw attention to the latent bias some of us have toward the disabled."

What I'm often seeing is a cop-out. It's far easier (and very common) to regard those with differing opinions as having a character flaw making them not only incapable of forming a 'correct' opinion but of even seeing the 'superior' morality of one's own opinion.

After all, anyone who supports Palestinians must be antisemitic. Anyone who supports the arrest of illegal immigrants and greater border control must be a racist. Anyone who comments on a female's behavior or qualifications must be a misogynist. Everyone knows that males are sexists.

Who can argue? An argument is, therefore, an open admission of having a character flaw.

It cannot escape notice that, when the subject of sentences within a post in any discussion becomes 'you' or 'your,' it is no longer the issue or event being discussed but the character flaws or intellectual incapacity of the poster.

[maddezmom]

36. locking

Please do not start a post to call out other DU'ers or continue an argument from another thread.