# Does ADA stifle free speech?



## mtlogcabin (Sep 27, 2017)

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2017/09/27/disabled-by-government-n2386785


----------



## mark handler (Sep 27, 2017)

Does ADA stifle free speech?
Maybe, but if it is not enforced, inaction will deny others of equal access.
Stanford needs stop having executive parties and first class travel and spend that money to "close caption" the tapes, then release them.


----------



## conarb (Sep 27, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Does ADA stifle free speech?
> Maybe, but if it is not enforced, inaction will deny others of equal access.
> Stanford needs stop having executive parties and first class travel and spend that money to "close caption" the tapes, then release them.


Stanford is too busy building a new campus in Redwood City the size of the Palo Alto campus to house nothing but administration to expand their empire with more climate change grants, number one source of income is now grants, number two is alumni donations, tuition is now almost nonexistent as it is free to all but those with families making over $135,000 per year, admission is now based upon diversity and inclusion, brains are now out, smart kids are no-longer welcome, in fact they are told to "Check their white, male, cognitive privilege at the door" when entering a classroom. 

When I was there in the early 50s there was one blind girl, I had a class with her, she had a braille machine that had a stand much like a court reporter, she typed class notes in braille.  Handicapped students were liked and helped back in those days, not demanding and obnoxious like today.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 27, 2017)

Why don't they give some students credit to closed caption them. These things are only as expensive as you make them.


----------



## Yikes (Sep 27, 2017)

I've had multiple projects with limited budgets where in the name of equivalent facilitation, the ADA solution was not to add accessibility, but rather to remove the added convenience for everyone.  2 examples:
1.  At a public university, we closed the non-compliant pathway/staircase that used to be a shortcut for 95% of the students from the sidewalk on the hill above.  Now they all have to meander along the street until it curves back to meet the building entry.  Actually, many of them still climb down the hill, causing erosion problems and it is also a fall hazard.

2.  At an elementary school, inside one building we closed the restrooms that could not readily be made accessible.  Now all student have to travel an extra 200' to another building next door which has accessible restrooms.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 27, 2017)

Yikes said:


> I've had multiple projects with limited budgets where in the name of equivalent facilitation, the ADA solution was not to add accessibility, but rather to remove the added convenience for everyone.  2 examples:
> 1.  At a public university, we closed the non-compliant pathway/staircase that used to be a shortcut for 95% of the students from the sidewalk on the hill above.  Now they all have to meander along the street until it curves back to meet the building entry.  Actually, many of them still climb down the hill, causing erosion problems and it is also a fall hazard.
> 
> 2.  At an elementary school, inside one building we closed the restrooms that could not readily be made accessible.  Now all student have to travel an extra 200' to another building next door which has accessible restrooms.


Overreaction and misguided. 
Not required and not the intent.


----------



## conarb (Sep 27, 2017)

mark handler said:


> Overreaction and misguided.
> Not required and not the intent.


Not true, it's a form of egalitarianism, as an example take college admissions, taking white Caucasians as the norm they give credits to Negroes, Latin, and American Indian applicants based upon lower  average IQs, conversely they penalize some Asian groups for higher average IQs, the intent is to make everyone equal in an egalitarian society.


----------



## tmurray (Sep 28, 2017)

Is posting videos of lectures a protected speech?

Also, the article claims that it is former president Barack Obama's regulators that are doing this. Are they not President Donald Trump's regulators now? 

The article seems a little biased.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 28, 2017)

Once again easy to blame the black guy, yes it was the Obamas Department of Justice (pdf link from the post: https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...), which sent the letter to Berkley (stanford followed later) that two representatives from National Association of the Deaf brought a complaint: the videos did not have captions so they the complainants could not use them in their classes. The easist way to resolve the issue was to remove the videos.  The harder path would be to close caption them or go to court.
Always blame the other guy. Or the black guy. Obama did not write the regulations.  Once again the ADA and the revisions were all done during Republican administrations
Like most laws written by Congress there are flaws. Easy to blame the President for everything, even with a dysfunctional Congress.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 28, 2017)

mark handler said:


> The easist way to resolve the issue was to remove the videos


Yes that was the easiest and cheapest thing to do but it did not "resolve" of depriving the thousands of other students access to the lectures. 
Maybe the answer should have been all future videos need to include closed caption. 
If a building does not have a ramp for access do the owners remove the steps so nobody has access? This everybody or nobody philosophy under Accessibility issues will result in a big backlash against the gains accessibility has made in this country.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 28, 2017)

Well said mt.....I was trying to think of how to articulate that thought, but you said exactly what I had on my mind.


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 28, 2017)

Not on "our" forum ADA doesn't. Equal voice to all.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 29, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> Not on "our" forum ADA doesn't. Equal voice to all.


Not for the blind.....


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 29, 2017)

?  they have tools: Braille, canes, text to voice, voice to text, etc.


----------



## conarb (Sep 29, 2017)

mtlogcabin said:


> Yes that was the easiest and cheapest thing to do but it did not "resolve" of depriving the thousands of other students access to the lectures.
> Maybe the answer should have been all future videos need to include closed caption.
> If a building does not have a ramp for access do the owners remove the steps so nobody has access? This everybody or nobody philosophy under Accessibility issues will result in a big backlash against the gains accessibility has made in this country.



Mountain Man, this is the cultural Marxist method to make everyone equal, since IQ is ingrained ab birth you can't raise intelligence but you can fail to educate the smart so you tear the top down to make all equal, school test scores are out here in California, they are now given by computer that automatically adjust questions so the dumb can pass and in the process tear the smart down to make all equal.



			
				East Bay Times said:
			
		

> Last spring was the third administration of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, which includes Smarter Balanced and other exams known in this state  and which replaced tests in the previous STAR system. The CAASPP It is a computer adaptive test — meaning as the test progresses, questions become harder or easier depending on the student’s answers.
> 
> But persistently low achievement rates of African-American, Latino, poor, English-learner and disabled students, who together make up a majority of the state’s public-school students, fuel criticism of the educational status quo.¹



Disabled students perform poorly because they include morons and imbeciles, we are becoming the Idiocracy portrayed in the book and movie.







And these results after the computers have "equalized" the test questions, so if we can tear down the top to make everyone equal you can certainly see how we can deny access to able bodied people to equalize the disabled. 




¹ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/09/27/california-school-test-scores-why-are-they-flatlining/


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 29, 2017)

Doesn't bode well for the future, does it? A few more major environmental events and we will drain the coffers.
The times they are a changing, rapidly!


----------



## tmurray (Sep 29, 2017)

Seems like the equivalent to picking up your toys and going home when told to share isn't it?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 29, 2017)

tmurray said:


> Seems like the equivalent to picking up your toys and going home when told to share isn't it?


Being told to share and bear 100% of the cost to comply is not the same as a "picking up your toys and going home attitude"



*COST TO CREATE CLOSED CAPTIONS
What does it cost me to receive a Closed Caption file for my film?
We currently charge $5.50 per minute.*
If you are a client of Distribber's the price is $5.50 per minute with or without a script/transscript, if you're not a client the price is $6.00 per minute with or without a script/transcript. The industry standard is between $7-$10 per minute with a transcript. The $5.50 price has no minimum requirements, if the film is 10 minutes then the total will be $55 to receive the Closed Caption file. There is a $150 sync charge if your film is delivered to any of our platforms.


https://www.distribber.com/closed-caption-services
 Roughly $400.00 per 45 minute lecture including the sync charge

Or 8 MILLION dollars ($8,000,000.00) to do all 20,000 lectures that where available online for free


----------



## tmurray (Sep 29, 2017)

mtlogcabin said:


> Being told to share and bear 100% of the cost to comply is not the same as a "picking up your toys and going home attitude"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you note a construction violation, how much does the municipality kick in?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 29, 2017)

Apples to oranges comparison. nobody is going to get hurt or die because a small percentage of students can't hear a video.  

Maybe the university made a wise decision not to burden the taxpayer and chose not to raise tuition fees to cover the cost. There is a point where the cost out weighs the benefit for the select few. Unfortunately the majority of students are the ones who suffer the biggest loss. 
This is just the beginning. Are ICC, IAPMO, APA, NFPA webinars and others closed caption? Any instructional video that is produced and available online through that organizations website are subject to the same ADA violation of failing to provide closed captioning. 

Are you willing to pay more out of your personal pocket for dues and training over the internet?


----------



## tmurray (Sep 29, 2017)

Sorry, but it was the law to provide equal access when they created the videos. A police officer doesn't rip up a speeding ticket when you tell them you speed there all the time.

I certainly have sympathy for existing buildings that are forced to make alterations, but this would be like constructing a brand new building not to ADA and then being upset when someone calls you out on it. 

As I said earlier, get your students to closed caption it for college credit. The college made a decision that since they did not want to make the effort to serve some of their students, they will serve no one.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 29, 2017)

tmurray said:


> The college made a decision that since they did not want to make the effort to serve some of their students, they will serve no one.



That just strikes me as........backwards.

If the hearing impaired were sitting in a lecture/class, there would no closed captioning........why is providing a video different?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 29, 2017)

http://www.adatitleiii.com/tag/closed-captioning/

The DOJ’s position in its findings letter to UC Berkeley — that a covered entity has a duty to ensure that content that it makes available to the public_ free of charge_ is accessible — certainly pushes the boundaries of the ADA and has not been tested in the courts.  If covered entities must in fact ensure that all of the information that they put out for the world to use for free (no matter how remotely related to their central mission) or face lawsuits and DOJ investigations, there may well be a significant reduction in the amount of information provided on the web for public consumption.

A court may at some point rule on this precise question in the pending lawsuits brought by members of the NAD against Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Massachusetts federal court.  The plaintiffs there are members of the public who are asking the court to order the universities to provide captioning for tens of thousands of videos on their websites.  As we reported, the court rebuffed the universities’ efforts to dismiss the case early and President Obama’s DOJ filed briefs supporting the NAD. As the case continues, the universities will likely focus their efforts on proving that providing captioning for tens of thousands of videos is an undue burden or would fundamentally alter the nature of the videos they are providing.  We would not be surprised if these lawsuits result in these universities deciding to follow UC Berkeley’s lead and limit the amount of public access to their online videos.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/03/01/course-capture/

They have been close captioning since 2015. It is the 3 to 10 year old videos that will no longer be available


----------



## ADAguy (Sep 29, 2017)

"Bummer" considering that Mass. was the first state to implement statewide access laws way back in 67'.
Unintended consequences, pre-PC days.


----------



## conarb (Sep 29, 2017)

Just look at what these bastards are doing again in the US Senate:



			
				Global News said:
			
		

> A U.S. Senate hearing pertaining to the Republican health-care bill had to take a brief recess Friday afternoon after disability rights advocates began chanting their opposition to the bill.
> 
> The protesters, many of whom were in wheelchairs and mobility scooters, were removed by police before the session resumed.
> 
> The Senate Finance Committee hearing was called to discuss a measure, proposed by Republican Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, that would undo former president Barack Obama‘s expansion of Medicaid and related subsidies.¹



Any of these activist groups who use the methodology of the Communist Saul Alinsky should be shot on the spot. 


¹ https://globalnews.ca/news/3767611/senate-healthcare-hearing-protesters-in-wheelchairs-removed/


----------



## tmurray (Oct 2, 2017)

fatboy said:


> That just strikes me as........backwards.
> 
> If the hearing impaired were sitting in a lecture/class, there would no closed captioning........why is providing a video different?


But it's the law that your democratically elected leaders have put into place and maintained for decades. Regardless of if you agree of disagree with the ethical implications, it is the law and if the populace wanted it changed, would it not have been changed by now?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 2, 2017)

tmurray said:


> if the populace wanted it changed, would it not have been changed by now?


Short answer is yes. 
The ADA like many complex laws, is vague and has flaws. 
People will oppose any law that impacts them. Whether or not they know it is the right thing to do.
It is no longer WWJD it is what is best for me.


----------



## conarb (Oct 2, 2017)

tmurray said:


> But it's the law that your democratically elected leaders have put into place and maintained for decades. Regardless of if you agree of disagree with the ethical implications, it is the law and if the populace wanted it changed, would it not have been changed by now?



As I have repeatedly stated it is an unconstitutional law, to be constitutional  there would have to be an amendment to the constitution, the courts have let them stand temporarily as redress to past grievances for blacks, Justice O'Connor gave civil rights law until 2028, that's 10 more years of this unconstitutional crap¹. We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional Republic and not a Democratic Republic like some "Progressives" would like to think, our founders followed both Plato and Aristotle who rejected Democracy in light of it's failure in Athens, if you are interested you should read Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics.

What we are getting here are the followers of Karl Marx and his Communist theory of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."



			
				Mark Handler said:
			
		

> Whether or not they know it is the right thing to do.
> It is no longer WWJD it is what is best for me.



What are you a religious nut case?  Who is to decide what is right, certainly not a government employee, especially one following religious doctrine. 


¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


----------



## tmurray (Oct 2, 2017)

conarb said:


> As I have repeatedly stated it is an unconstitutional law, to be constitutional  there would have to be an amendment to the constitution, the courts have let them stand temporarily as redress to past grievances for blacks, Justice O'Connor gave civil rights law until 2028, that's 10 more years of this unconstitutional crap¹. We are not a Democracy, we are a constitutional Republic and not a Democratic Republic like some "Progressives" would like to think, our founders followed both Plato and Aristotle who rejected Democracy in light of it's failure in Athens, if you are interested you should read Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics.
> 
> What we are getting here are the followers of Karl Marx and his Communist theory of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."



So if the elected officials and courts are unwilling to change the law, the people who are enforcing it are paid to do so, what is the plan to change it? Beating a dead horse on a building inspection forum where most don't even enforce this law?


----------



## conarb (Oct 2, 2017)

At what point do you guys stop enforcing bad law?  Nuremberg stands for the principle that "Just following orders" does not absolve you of criminal activity. The worst thing that ADA has done, beyond the trillions that it has cost, is flooding our schoolrooms with idiots and morons destroying our educational system, just look at my recent post about California test scores dropping, even with tests programed to make everyone equal:



			
				East Bay Times said:
			
		

> The CAASPP It is a computer adaptive test — meaning as the test progresses, *questions become harder or easier depending on the student’s answers*. The test also includes “performance tasks” where students apply knowledge to analyze a real-world problem.
> 
> But persistently low achievement rates of African-American, Latino, poor, English-learner and *disabled* students, who together make up a majority of the state’s public-school students, fuel criticism of the educational status quo.¹



Note that the chart that accompanied that article didn't even list disabled/retarded kids, retarded kids can't learn so nobody learns.  With the "Computer adaptive" tests theoretically you could sit a 60 IQ moron next to a 160 IQ genius and their scores would come out identical.  There are no scores to games, everyone gets a participation trophy,


¹ http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/09/27/california-school-test-scores-why-are-they-flatlining/


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 3, 2017)

You, "Conarb" are a piece of work, "old " work. You live in the past and don't apparently have any faith in the future.
Read "The Art of Loving" by Eric Fromm and maybe you may see the light.


----------



## tmurray (Oct 3, 2017)

“The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”

― Abraham Lincoln

Strangely enough, this is also the best thing to do with good laws. I think it very strange that billion dollar corporations that have had to pay millions in retrofits to their buildings to comply with this law would not simply fight it to the supreme court level and have it overturned. Perhaps your opinion that it is unconstitutional is not shared by their legal teams.


----------



## conarb (Oct 3, 2017)

ADAguy said:


> You, "Conarb" are a piece of work, "old " work. You live in the past and don't apparently have any faith in the future.
> Read "The Art of Loving" by Eric Fromm and maybe you may see the light.



ADAguy:

You are right, I am old, old enough to remember the tyranny of Roosevelt and his war, but also remember freedom in this country, I read an interesting article yesterday, it might give you an idea of what lots of America thinks about this return to tyranny.



			
				International Man said:
			
		

> Libertarians and others who seek to be left alone to run their own lives habitually ask themselves the above question regarding their government.
> 
> So, what’s the answer? Are they out to get you? Well, unfortunately, the answer isn’t a simple “yes” or “no.” In fact, it’s “yes” _and_ “no.”
> 
> ...




¹ http://www.internationalman.com//articles/are-they-really-out-to-get-me


----------



## conarb (Oct 3, 2017)

tmurray said:


> “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
> 
> ― Abraham Lincoln
> 
> Strangely enough, this is also the best thing to do with good laws. I think it very strange that billion dollar corporations that have had to pay millions in retrofits to their buildings to comply with this law would not simply fight it to the supreme court level and have it overturned. Perhaps your opinion that it is unconstitutional is not shared by their legal teams.


 T Murray:

Most attorneys think this will come to a head when Justice O'Connor's 25 years ends in 10 years, on the other hand it's tied to all civil rights legislation and the situation with black and feminist rights overshadows disability, ongoing riots will certainly have an effect, what everyone is waiting for are one or two more changes in the supreme court.  As I've said there is a way to legalize it, and that's a constitutional amendment.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 3, 2017)

Wasn't that tried once?


----------



## tmurray (Oct 3, 2017)

That's quite the libertarian propaganda. There are certainly those in the civil service that wouldn't cut it in the private sector. I also see people in the private sector who will not cut it in the private sector. I was in the private sector and did quite well. I took an enormous pay cut to get my current job. I did it because I wanted to start a family and being away from home for months at a time was not acceptable to me. More and more, I am seeing people like myself, who are highly skilled professionals who value the benefits of public sector work more than the pay of the private sector. I would also question how effective your motive of convincing inspectors not to do their jobs while continuing to insult their intelligence.


----------



## conarb (Oct 3, 2017)

tmurray said:


> That's quite the libertarian propaganda.



I am a Libertarian, can't stand either Republicans or Democrats, in 1952 when Eisenhower got in with both houses I kept waiting for them to kill Social Security, finally realized that once these socialistic programs get in they never go away, we are in the inevitable slide into socialism and tyranny, just like the Germans and Russians.



> There are certainly those in the civil service that wouldn't cut it in the private sector.



Most are risk averse people who sacrifice opportunity and wealth for security, but somebody has to do it, but never me.



> I also see people in the private sector who will not cut it in the private sector. I was in the private sector and did quite well. I took an enormous pay cut to get my current job. I did it because I wanted to start a family and being away from home for months at a time was not acceptable to me. More and more, I am seeing people like myself, who are highly skilled professionals who value the benefits of public sector work more than the pay of the private sector.



I also see successful professionals who have given up because of the enormous paperwork and loss of freedom, if my doctors have been unable to retire they have joined hospital groups first because fo the insurance companies then Obamacare, they now work for a salary, insurance, and pensions, like you some like it, they work 5 days a week 9 to 5.  A lawyer friend saw medical malpractice as our biggest problem, he folded up his practice and went to work for the Department of Consumer Affairs prosecuting incompetent doctors.



> I would also question how effective your motive of convincing inspectors not to do their jobs while continuing to insult their intelligence.



Good point, I wonder myself why I stay around here, especially since I've retired, I know of at lest two inspectors who have quit rather than put up with the direction codes have taken, many of our older members have flat out disappeared.  I guess I hate the New World Order, socialism, the social justice agenda, and political correctness so much that I hang around to counterbalance the far left turn this forum has taken, maybe because I have degrees in philosophy and law I am one of the few who can counteract people like Mark Handler who has tried to make this forum his personal political platform.  And BTW, I came from a time when inspectors were my best friends, I guess I hope that those old days could return for younger generations of builders and we could have reasonable codes and code enforcement, and above all get politics out of codes.


----------



## ADAguy (Oct 4, 2017)

You can't go back anymore, our children and grandchildren will never know what we knew.
Then again you could always retreat to New Zealand.


----------



## Yikes (Oct 6, 2017)

In a related news story, maybe it will eventually be simpler for Hollywood to just stop making movies altogether:

*Court: Movie theaters must accommodate deaf-blind patrons*
AP News, 10-6-2017

Federal disability law requires movie theaters to provide specialized interpreters to patrons who are deaf and blind, an appeals court said Friday.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Cinemark, the nation’s third-largest movie chain, in a case involving a Pennsylvania man who wanted to see the 2014 movie “Gone Girl” and asked a Cinemark theater in Pittsburgh to supply a “tactile interpreter.” The theater denied his request.

The plaintiff, Paul McGann, is a movie enthusiast who reads American Sign Language through touch. He uses a method of tactile interpretation that involves placing his hands over the hands of an interpreter who uses sign language to describe the movie’s action, dialogue and even the audience response.

The federal appeals court concluded Friday that tactile interpreters are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires that public accommodations furnish “auxiliary aids and services” to patrons with vision, hearing and speech disabilities.

“It would be impossible for a deaf-blind person to experience the movie and understand the content without the provision of tactile interpretation,” said Carol A. Horowitz, managing attorney of Disability Rights Pennsylvania, which filed suit on McGann’s behalf.

The ruling said Cinemark still can argue that providing the interpreters would present an “undue burden,” an exception to the disability law that takes into account the cost of the accommodation and the business’s ability to pay for it. It sent the case back to a federal judge to consider that argument.

Because of the intensive nature of the work, McGann requires the services of two interpreters. The interpreters cost a few hundred dollars per showing.

Cinemark earned $257 million in 2016. The movie chain also has said that before McGann, it had never before received a request for tactile interpretation.

A spokesperson for the Plano, Texas-based chain said Cinemark is evaluating its legal options.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed documents in support of McGann.


----------



## conarb (Oct 6, 2017)

The extent they have to go explains something else to me, as I've said before I can't hear worth a damn anymore, when called to jury duty I always ask to be excused but they refuse after I fill out a form.  After being seated in a courtroom the judge asked who the juror was who was hard of hearing, I raised my hand and a bailiff came over and handed me a device to hang around my neck, the judge then asked me if I could hear him, I said "Barely", he then asked me to come down to the front row and asked a woman in the middle to give me her seat.  He then asked the attorneys doing _voir dire _to turn and face me as they interrogated the potential jurors on the stand, this was very disconcerting as the attorney was asking questions of somebody behind his back while he was talking directly to me. Again the judge asked if I could hear, again I said barely, he then asked the attorneys to speak up when asking their questions so I could hear, soon they were shouting at me in front of them while directing questions of someone behind their backs.  Finally the judge thanked and dismissed me, on the way out I stopped at the jury commissioner's office and asked to be permanently excused from jury duty because of my hearing, they refused on the basis that my hearing might improve or hearing aids might be improved to the extent that I could hear. I'd say a good half hour was spent in the courtroom trying to make me hear.


----------

