[nabs-l] Bad news for blind and visually impaired people

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

Steve,

I understand this ruling does not mean a judge didn't feel we had a
right to the information.  Laws are structured with many elements, and a
judge is following the law and not necessarily any personal agenda.

My point, however, is that at the heart of this issue, regardless of
motive, blind people can not independently access these forms of
information, and our legal system just ruled saying this company does
not have to do anything to provide accessibility,  therefore denying us
access to the information.

Those who can visually see have no problem.  If an airport check-in
kiosk was on the fritz, the airport would fix it promptly so it could be
used ASAP.  They would not say, oh well, the kiosk broke so you
passengers have to go back to checking in the old-fashioned way.  But
when we communicate the inaccessibility of such kiosk for visually
impaired people allowing us to check-in independently, just like
everyone else, not only does the company say no, the legal system
supports the no.  So we are denied access to information those with
sight can access with no problem or assistance.  By its basic
definition, this is creating inequality.

It is not a matter of blaming the judge or claiming out-right
intentional discrimination; We have been denied something that is a
convenience, but a convenience others can easily access.  I'm not
addressing any personal feelings the judge may have had, nor am I even
addressing the law; I'm stating that, whether legal or not, denying
access to one group of people is labeling that group as less equal than
others.  It is a basic definition- look it up in a dictionary.  Visually
impaired customers have been divided and separated from those with sight
and denied access to this information.  It is not a heated statement
from the heart- it is the facts of this ruling when looking at the
definition of inequality.

We shouldn't be ranting and raving, running around half-cocked jumping
to assumptions.  However, I've yet to read anything on this list in
regards to this matter that would suggest we temper our responses and be
careful of how we present our questions and concerns.  Another law in
this country is we can speak our minds with no fear of legal
ramifications.  We have every right to question this ruling especially
if we don't understand the outcome.  Most of us have a superficial
knowledge of the law, and very few of us understand the intricate
process of the law.  When something seems unfair we have every right to
speak up.  I don't believe any damage to the Federation or this case is
being done because of our desire to understand and question the ruling.

And perhaps the law needs to change.  There was a time when our legal
system supported segregation.  It was once completely legal to deny
service to people of different races and ethnicities.  Eventually this
became illegal.  Perhaps this current ruling is an example of how we
need to change the law.  Maybe it should be illegal to deny
accessibility just as it is now illegal to deny fair and equal treatment
to people of different races.

Just because the law upheld this decision doesn't mean we should sit
back and accept it.  It is not necessarily the judges fault if they were
simply following the law as it is currently established, but it is the
law that must be examined and shown to create inequality.

This issue isn't even about technology and what it can offer.  It is
about providing equal access to information.  Forget for the moment what
laws may or may not support such a decision, in terms of civil rights
and the human condition, why should we not have equal independent access
to information ?  Should not the law reflect such ideas of equality?

For those of us who understand just how capable blind people are, and
who believe limits are a thing of the past, such a ruling highlights how
unfair our laws can be.  If we have the same potential as the non-blind,
why don't we have access to life in an equal manner?  Why do our laws
not support equal rulings?  If one group can use something, than all
groups should be able to access it.

I don't believe any inappropriate comments have been made threatening
this case or others like it, nor do I think we should accept this ruling
just because the law currently supports it.  This is the point of the
Federation- to create equal opportunities, and fight for fair and equal
treatment in all facets of life.

Sincerely,
Bridgit Kuenning-Pollpeter
Read my blog for Live Well Nebraska.com at
http://blogs.livewellnebraska.com/author/bpollpeter/

Message: 19
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:52:18 -0500
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Bad News for blind and visually impaired people
Message-ID: <auto-000003091142 at mailback4.g2host.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

While it would have been far better to have had this decision go in our
favor, I think we have to be careful how we interpret decisions like
this.  To my 
knowledge, the decision did not go against us because a judge didn't
think we needed this information, but rather because of the way certain
laws 
superceed others.  That doesn't make life any better for us right now,
but it leaves the door open to taking other approaches.  Often there is
more than one 
path to take when filing a legal action and one tries to follow the path
with the highest likelihood of success, but there is always some risk.
There are times 
when we have felt that to take court action had a greater chance of
doing dammage than helping and have not done so.  While some of our
accessibility 
feels to us that it is clearly a right, it isn't always so under the
law, and we are sometimes trying to squeeze the most we can out of the
fringe of the law.  
Technology has changed dramatically what we feel we can reasonably
expect even during the past 30 years and the law takes time to catch up.
We'll 
have to just continue figuring out how best to make our case.