ADA May Force Netflix To Provide Closed Captioning On Content

Shivetya writes "Last year Netflix was sued by the National Association for the Deaf for failing to provide closed captioned text through its on-demand streaming service. Now, a judge has denied Netflix's attempt to have the suit thrown out, saying that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in any venue — not just physical structures. The easiest means to comply would be to remove all videos which do not have a closed captioning component, the other route would require Netflix to pay to have this done to any video it wants to provide. The implications to other providers is immense as well. The plaintiffs will still need to prove that Netflix is legally obligated to provide closed-captioning, but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Comments

Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days

[Anonymous Coward]

And, believe or not, there's actually a movement against that. There are deaf people that want deaf children, and want them to remain deaf. I'm a type 1 diabetic, and I can't imagine forcing that on a child. It makes like a pain in the butt.

Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days

[elrous0]

Oh yeah, my roomie regarded those implants as the enemy, and any deaf person who supported them as a traitor.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Nethemas the Great]

They're not ripping DVDs. They're purchasing content from digital distribution houses such as Funimation, Weinstein, Dreamworks, Starz (well at least used to), etc.. The content provider would have to make the subtitles available to Netflix to push onto the stream. If they don't/won't then Netflix would be on the hook if they are legally recognized as a "multi-channel video programming distributor".

This is just a premliminary ruling.

[Animats]

This is just a preliminary ruling. Netflix tried to have the suit dismissed, that didn't work, and now it gets tried on the merits.

At some point, the ADA runs into the First Amendment, which prohibits "forced speech". (Broadcast TV is a special case, because it involves publicly owned RF spectrum.) Book publishers aren't required to produce audio or Braille editions, or translations to another language.

Re:Is that serious, or a straw man?

[LO0G]

Here's a hint:

(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

The law cites the 14th amendment (equal protection) and the commerce clause.

Re:Great for people with Kids

[jersey_emt]

Or you could simply be a real parent and not tolerate misbehavior. My parents just told me to shut the hell up when it was inappropriate to make noise.

Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days

[silas_moeckel]

Unfortunately deaf pride or whatever you want to call it is a very prevent and prominent culture in many primarily deaf settings. The local school was protesting hearing teachers even with implants. They are pushing for laws to prevent implants to those unable to consent (effectively making it a mute point as you cant wait till 18 to decide the nerves do atrophy). It's pushed pretty heavily by some deaf teachers to impressionable young children under there care. I guess it's not different that other teachers choosing indoctrination of other political agendas as part of there teaching.