[blindlaw] Do blind people have a right to visual memory?

Wed Jan 24 18:56:27 UTC 2018

I'm not familiar with the AIRA. Could you elaborate?

How is this different from your generic slip & fall tort situation
where someone might have video evidence?

Sincerely,
Sai

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Jim McCarthy via BlindLaw
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> So to me this is an interesting question about a right of people to visual
> memory. It has me more interesting to see something like AIRA. What is mean
> is this:
> A blind person is working with an AIRA agent while traveling; there is an
> accident involving the blind person, hit by a car, gets hurt from a trip and
> fall on degraded sidewalk or who knows? The AIRA interaction will be of
> interest to many in that instance. I am not practicing but that seems like
> it could be an important evidentiary question about admissibility that we
> would not have confronted in times past, one we will receive at some point.
> Jim McCarthy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sai via
> BlindLaw
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 1:05 PM
> To: Blind Law Mailing List
> Cc: Sai
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Do blind people have a right to visual memory?
>
> I think you took me to mean something a bit different than I intended.
>
> Yes, there are things that just aren't going to change, and we have to deal
> with that, as well as have legal protections as fallbacks. For instance, as
> you mentioned, there's absolute right of way for cane users. I've certainly
> had my share of navigation issues (like I said) where I probably could've
> done better had I been in a better state and with better skills, but I
> wasn't, so had to rely on that. (Thankfully I've never been run into by
> anything worse than a clueless pedestrian, but I sure as hell would want the
> other person to pay if that happened, even if I was in the bike lane or
> whatever.)
>
> However, my point was about situations where there *are* potential remedies
> available, but they are legally restricted by default, like recording.
>
> I'm not proposing that the government (or third parties) would have the
> burden of paying for such things; I think ADA-style accommodations are a
> pretty good balance.
>
> Rather, I want the government to not punish me (or threaten to) for
> recording whenever and wherever I want. A sighted person in the same
> situation would have had the opportunity to see and remember what they saw.
> I can mimic that ability using a pair of sunglasses with a hidden camera in
> them. (I actually have a pair.)
>
> But even when I'm totally taking on that burden of accommodating myself,
> right now, I might be prohibited from doing so.
>
>
> Most courts, for instance, ban all recording. But suppose I'm arguing at a
> hearing, or a jury trial. A sighted lawyer in my position would be able to
> remember how the judge or jury reacted emotionally to various things, and
> use that knowledge when preparing for the next hearing. I would not be able
> to do that... unless I can record it.
>
> So on what basis could I argue for the right to record it?
>
> Or, to put the converse again: would it be legal for the court to say
> everyone entering the court has to wear a blindfold? Would it be legal for a
> judge to say that opposing counsel, in my particular case, has to wear a
> blindfold at all times during my case?
>
> I think the answer to both of those is clearly 'no'. So why is it legal for
> the court to prohibit me from recording, since that's the next best thing to
> vision that I have available to me?
>
>
> This question doesn't really get at accommodations in general, i.e.
> affirmative steps that others have to take. Those are of course the much
> more common scenario.
>
> This only gets at a challenge to prohibitions on what you could do now, but
> would be punished for doing.
>
> The closest "normal" thing I can think of that's like this question is
> jaywalking. Presumably cane users have a right to jaywalk, even though
> that's otherwise a crime, without fear of any government punishment for
> doing so.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sai
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:23 AM, Daniel McBride via BlindLaw
> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> Sai:
>>
>> With all due respect, I am not really sure what your question entails
>> and, given my best impression of your question, I am believing I might
>> have more legitimate issues to worry about.
>>
>> There are those of us who are blind. There are those who are not. I
>> certainly understand the concepts underlying the ADA and a disabled
>> persons right to a fair, and equal, chance at life and what it has to
> offer.
>> However, within this context, at some point I have to face the fact
>> that I am blind and live with its limitations.
>>
>> Let's say I seek, for example, my constitutional right (?) to be a
>> starting pitcher in major league baseball so I get the chance to
>> experience what sighted persons experience, or to be a starting
>> quarterback in the NFL so I can experience what sighted persons get to
>> experience. Or, I can simply accept the fact that I am blind and
>> realize that a blind person will never pitch in Major League Baseball nor
> be a starting quarterback in the NFL.
>>
>> I'm sure I navigate places daily that I am unaware are potentially
>> hazardous. In the painted bicycle lane example, if a sighted bicyclist
>> sees a blind person on the shared sidewalk with his/her cane, or guide
>> dog and the cyclist is unwilling to yield to the blind person, then I
>> am more concerned about the cyclists' ability to satisfy my judgment
>> against him/her for any injuries they might cause me.
>>
>> If I understand your question correctly, I believe it falls into the
>> category of being careful what we ask for because we just might get it.
>>
>> And my comment is intended respectfully. Just my two cents worth. And
>> I might be misunderstanding the intent of your question as well.
>>
>> Daniel McBride
>> Fort Worth
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Sai
>> via BlindLaw
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:01 PM
>> To: Blind Law Mailing List
>> Cc: Sai
>> Subject: [blindlaw] Do blind people have a right to visual memory?
>>
>> Consider any of various situations where it is illegal to secretly
>> record video. Customs, courts, etc etc.
>>
>> A sighted person going through those situations would have a visual
>> memory of what they saw. A blind person would not; they wouldn't have
>> access to the same information that the sighted person does (albeit
> limited by memory).
>>
>> So, could one (winnably) argue that the blind person has a
>> Constitutional
>> *right* to covert video recording, i.e. the right to see and remember
>> what they saw (albeit through the intermediary of a recording), at
>> least for personal or testimonial use?
>>
>>
>> I started thinking about this recently during O&M training. I recorded
>> the training session out of curiosity to see what it was like.
>>
>> I didn't learn until after recording that training session that a
>> street I walk very frequently has a painted-on bike lane on part of the
> sidewalk.
>>
>> I had absolutely no idea it was there, despite having walked that
>> exact path for months and easily recognizing various parts of it by
>> cane. The painted-on bike lane, and the division between it and the
>> pedestrian part of the sidewalk, just have almost zero perceptible
>> tactile cues, let alone something to indicate "don't walk here".
>>
>> As a result, in that video of my training session, I was blithely
>> walking along the curb side of the sidewalk, smack in the middle of a
>> bike lane. It came as quite a shock to me when I reviewed the video.
>>
>> I've had multiple other experiences where visual memory was critical,
>> like where TSA violated my rights and I needed evidence of who did
>> what. Had I not been recording, I wouldn't have that evidence.
>>
>>
>> So it makes me think: what about establishing a blind person's right
>> to perceive, and recall, the same visual information that a sighted
>> person would have access to in the same situation? (Or likewise for
>> d/Deaf and audio, or psychological issues and memory in general.)
>>
>> Has anyone ever tried this?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Sai
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> BlindLaw:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglob
>> al.net
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/legal%40s.ai
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jmccarthy%40mdtap.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/legal%40s.ai