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

Wed Aug 10 03:37:43 UTC 2011

Can someone send me the original ruling post or link to the actual case? Thank you.  
PS. Discrimination in America still prevails regardless of anyone’s views.  People are still denied fair treatment based upon looks, appearances, and other personal assumptions.  I would not say that the blind are discriminated against and other groups are not.  Take a look at what is happening politically.  If the president was as powerful as the last one, there would be no tea party and obvious pushback from other groups.  I do not like to discuss these controversial issues; however, America and Americans are not as united and educated as some may believe.  We are trailing the world since our culture is still so judgmental and ignorant.

> From: bpollpeter at hotmail.com
> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 17:32:55 -0500
> Subject: [nabs-l] Bad news for blind and visually impaired people
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/wmodnl%40hotmail.com