All we are seeing is blind people using market power to get more accommodations. if you DON’T like ADA suits, then isn’t this EXACTLY what you want? that is, rather than sue, instead use market pressure?
I mean is this site called “overlawyered” or “overaccommodated”? because if the goal is to reduce litigation, then this site should be downright happy. but somehow i sense it is not.
I don’t object to accomodation although the use of “reasonable” to mean “unlimited” offends me. I do object to every advance being festooned with lawsuits because it isn’t set up for everyone yet.
@A.W.: Pretty much what Bob said. I have no problem with REASONABLE accommodation, and I’m just fine with lawsuits that force reasonable accommodation (though personally I think a federal agency doing routine inspections and with the power to fine/shut down, like the health inspectors, would be largely preferable). What I have a problem with is stuff like this. Universities have used regular paper textbooks for… as long as both books and schools have existed, really, and now they’ve started using Kindles to aid students, which also have a read aloud feature (albeit, apparently difficult to access). As a result, blind students have nothing taken away from them, and in fact have a little bit *more* access to materials than they did before. What is their response? To push for boycotts, because the sudden, unexpected gain wasn’t big enough?
Do you find this either reasonable or logical, A.W.? I sure don’t.
First, i think your idea of federal inspectors is terrible. nothing would better ensure that 1) businesses are needlessly saddled with costs and 2) disabled people don’t even get what they actually need.
as for your issues, its private pressure. no lawsuits involved. so why does this bother people at “overlawyered?”
as for your argument that blind people are a little better off… well, they would be much better off if amazon gave blind people just a little more thought. i mean sheesh, you create a read out loud feature but you make it so you have to see in order to activate it? did they consult with even a single blind person?
“did they consult with even a single blind person?”
You feel offended whenever a product is not made for EVERTONE. I wonder what’s your reason behind that? I think in captalism the only consult you need when you make a product for profit is the MARKET. According to you, amazon should conslult the blind, deaf, aged, nearsighted, overweighted, homosexual, non English speaker etc.. for every products they sell. If I make a kindle usable only by Latavia people, do I offend you that the product is not accessible by other people? I may be stupid that I don’t make it in Chinese so I can have a wider market share, but that’s just my own stupidity and none of your business, right?
(I use your last name since, although I use my entire name, you see fit to address me by just my last name, without reasonable honorific. Therefore this is clearly your preferenc, although you seem to prefer to lurk behind anonymous initials for whatever reason)
Your automatic assumption that because some blind people are pressuring universities not to use it that no one involved with its production ever talked to a blind person about it seems to me an unwarranted assumption. If anything, the presence of a talking feature would indicate that some thought was given to blind people. The fact that it is not, apparently, easily activated simply indicates to me that it needs further work; indeed, earlier versions of the Kindle were poor sellers because it is still a work in progress.
While I am, in large part, in agreement with CTrees, permit me to offer an emotional response: is a negative methodology the only one that our society sees as working? Is a movement to boycott a product. because it does not serve *my* needs as well as it serves another’s, reasonable?
> You feel offended whenever a product is not made for [EVERYONE]. I wonder what’s your reason behind that?
I wonder why you aren’t offended by people being physically excluded from using a product.
> According to you, amazon should [consult] the blind, deaf, aged, nearsighted, overweighted, homosexual, non English speaker etc..
I didn’t say all that, but how about not putting in physical barriers against one of the largest purchasers of audio books?
> I think in captalism the only consult you need when you make a product for profit is the MARKET.
Mmm, taking that as an advocacy of capitalism, good. And major components of that market have chosen to demand changes. So what is your objection?
Bob
> you see fit to address me by just my last name, without reasonable honorific
If you were offended, I meant nothing by it. I am not a very formal guy.
> that because some blind people are pressuring universities not to use it that no one involved with its production ever talked to a blind person about it seems to me an unwarranted assumption.
Except that is not my assumption. I was specific to the complaint.
And indeed, I don’t read anything about blind people pressuring anyone; I see 2 universities deciding that it cares about equality for the blind. Is it possible there is pressure involved? Sure. Or maybe its like Senator Harkin who gives a crap because his brother is deaf. Or maybe the schools just care because they are stand up institutions. I like how you assume that their moral stance is somehow the result of coercion.
> If anything, the presence of a talking feature would indicate that some thought was given to blind people.
No, if anything it suggests that they have no idea who buys most of their audio books, and can’t in the most basic way understand their needs. I mean, crud, all they really had to do is just close their eyes and say “can I do this without opening my eyes?” They would have figured out that their audio function didn’t really help blind people all that much.
> Is a movement to boycott a product. because it does not serve *my* needs as well as it serves another’s, reasonable?
Beats the hell out of lawsuits, for sure. And I for one applaud anyone who boycotts to aid another. There is something noble in saying, “the slight against my brother is a slight to me.”
The National Federation for the Blind is suing ASU for providing Kindles in a pilot program:
The Federation of the Blind sued one of the schools that participated in this pilot program – Arizona State University – in June, along with the American Council of the Blind and a blind ASU student, arguing it was discriminating against blind students. That case is ongoing.
The group also filed complaints with the Department of Justice against five other schools that are participating in the Kindle trial with Amazon. Wisconsin and Syracuse are not among those schools.
Before the legal intervention, Amazon was already working on the accommodations.
Some people just don’t like the hand the dealer game them. So, what better reason to sue the casino – or in this case, tell your friends that they only have cold tables.
AW “Beats the hell out of lawsuits, for sure. And I for one applaud anyone who boycotts to aid another. There is something noble in saying, “the slight against my brother is a slight to me.”
I, therefore, recommend that we immediately boycott all automobile manufacturers. They do very little, if anything, go accommodate blind, or seriously impaired, drivers.
Still not getting that there is no lawsuit involved here. okay.
Ed
Right, driving a car is exactly like reading a book.
Sorry, are you under the impression that blind people have no interaction with the written word. Sure, they can’t sight read, but i don’t get this fetishization of natural ability. humans are, by comparison to animals, the deafest, the blindest, the weakest, the slowest, animals around; we have little sense of smell, little in the way of defenses or offensive weapons, and so on. if it weren’t for our brains we would be easy meat.
But that one difference makes all the difference in the world. We can’t run as fast as the antelope fleeing from us? okay, so then we build a motorcyle. don’t have any natural weapons to speak of (no claws; our teeth are relatively blunt and our jaws are weak). Fine, then we invent a gun and shoot it. Can’t see as far as an eagle? Then we invent binoculars. Can’t see in the dark? night vision goggles. the list goes on and on. And soon we are not only making up for our shortcomings, but we are achieving things that no other species can, such as walking on the moon.
By the same count there are humans who cannot walk as well as other humans, and indeed cannot walk at all. So we build them wheelchairs and wheelchair ramps. Can’t hear? then they invent a language that allows them to communicate visually.
But if you can’t see, well, shucks, you are morally opposed to any effort to use our ingenuity to help them out. If you want to take that attitude, then take it all the way. go into the jungle, take off your woven clothing, throw away all your tools including your gun and have at it as a naked ape. See how long you go before you end up being some preditor’s breakfast. But us civilized people think that there is nothing wrong with using our minds to overcome our physical shortcomings.
And its so short sighted of you, too. We have three options in our society with what to do with handicapped people. the first is to kill them or allow them to die; hopefully no one seriously wants that. the second is to leave them in a state of dependancy, and sometimes that absolutely can’t be avoided. But there is a third way, to give them the tools needed to be independant. to butcher an old reagan quote, if you give a paraplegic a fish, he will eat for a day; if you make the docks wheelchair accessible, they will eat forever. It seems that making it possible to for handicapped to live independantly is economically efficient, as well as the moral solution given that it is a pathetic thing for a person to remain permamently in a state of dependancy.
So two schools stand up and say, “we want our blind students to be able to be independant.” this is for society the most efficient solution, and it gives those handicapped people something you and i might take for granted: the simple self-respect that comes with financial independance. and best of all, from the perspective of this site, they are doing it by market forces and not lawsuits. and you are still opposed. i don’t get it.
Care to explain to me why you should have a kindle that meets your needs but you are dead set against a kindle that meets their needs?
My, what a sweeping statement: I think that perhaps boycotting amazon.com because the access to the read-aloud feature on the Kindle is not the optimum action, therefore I am opposed to any accomadation to blind people at all. I applaud your clear, nuanced thinking.
Well, you clearly don’t like lawsuits. you don’t like market-based actions. So it begs the question what do you like? if a blind person wants accommodation, what exactly do you think they should do to get it?
And why is it unreasonable to think that your answer really is, “just suffer–life sucks”?
And for that matter, am i really to believe you oppose all boycotts for all purposes? Dr. King’s montgomery bus boycott, for instance, where people refused to ride the bus until a more equal policy was adopted–do you think he was wrong to do that? how about the boston tea party?
And if you are not opposed to all boycots, why then are you opposed to this one?
I notice you have not responded to my comments about nuance, which requires a lot more facts in the case than have been offered by you — or frankly, me.
However, you may notice that while we have bene bickering, NOBODY SPECIAL has posted that Amazon.com has already been working on accomodations, even before the National Federation for the Blind (which the blind man I know best opposes as being composed of sighted people who know little of the trials of being blind and thus not particularly useful) decided to sue.
So, apparently, amazon.com has been in touch with people, has been trying to accomodate them. While it would require more effort than I — or you, apparently — would care to put in to determine if amazon.com has been making a real effort to deal with these issues — which would, by the way, be very useful for additional market share — the comments here indicate that the company has been making some effort.
As I have no intention to purchase a kindle shortly, this discussion is only of academic interest to me.
As to what conditions I would take part in a boycott, they would have to include clearly immoral actions on the part of whoever is being boycotted and a sense that the boycott would be successful. I have, in the past, refused to buy products from companies I consider immoral, including Archer-Daniels-Midland, but I doubt very much it had much effect on them.
I do think that some one shouting that he is being oppressed is required before I will admit to the fact. Hard-hearted of me, perhaps. If it possible that you lean to the characterization that everyone in business is a heartless bastrd ready to shred children in order to make another six cents?
So we find out that you are not opposed to all boycotts just this one. Apparently you don’t see enough justice in providing accommodations to the blind.
And that is what your objections are really about, isn’t it? you just don’t like accommodations.
Well, God forbid you should ever find yourself in that position.
I’m sorry, you’re right (but you knew that, didn’t you).
Nothing like a car.
How about a TV, Movie theater, camera, camcorder? Should we be boycotting them? Just tell me who to boycott and doggonit, I’ll boycott.
We can start with Walmart, maybe? My son has size 14 feet. They don’t carry size 14 shoes. We should make them. If they are going to sell to one, they must sell to all, right?
How about this metaphor? How about like a computer. Now i have no visual impairment (unless you count my glasses which actually has “made by the Coca-cola bottling company stamped on the side but nonetheless fully correct my vision), and requested no modifications to this i am typing on computer, but right now, i can hit Start > Accessories >Accessibility and choose the program “narrator” and my computer will do pretty much everything that they are asking amazon’s kindle to do. try it out. now are you really telling me that this is so much to ask for, so much that you oppose even using market forces to ask for it?
Just for the record, that thing there you suggested? I did try it out, just now. It *definitely* requires sight to activate (well, at least on Vista, cannot confirm on other operating systems), which makes it better… how?
I have seen blind people do it themselves without the help of a sighted person. you’d be surprised.
You mean that someone who blind can do something without a tactile feel of the computer?
That is great.
It also throws out the “accommodation” in the case of the Kindle. The only issue appears to be not enough of a tactile feedback to the user. As you have just illustrated, there is no need for tactile feedback when dealing with an electronic device.
Frankly AW, this is a case where a device that was designed to do one thing has people demanding that it do something else to their satisfaction. It isn’t good enough that the thing has state of the art text to speech reading capabilities, it has to be designed to do a certain thing a certain way.
Many people get lost while driving. Should we then demand that car manufacturers install a GPS as standard equipment on all vehicles? Or is the GPS a feature that some people need and some may not? Doesn’t that need or desirability mean a choice for the consumer and not a demand?
You have mentioned that people that are blind buy the most audiobooks. I am not sure that the statistics back that up. Less than one percent of the population is legally blind, but 28% have bought audiobooks.
Finally, whether Kindle is able to utilize the text to speech feature is based on permission from the publisher of the book / material. Assuming that Kindle is redesigned to make it easier for the blind to use, isn’t the next logical step in your thought process that the publisher must allow the text to speech feature enabled on their books and media?
If that is the case, then where does control of ones intellectual property begin and end? Are you really going to say that a publisher / author has to express themselves in a certain media or they cannot express or publish at all?
> You mean that someone who blind can do something without a tactile feel of the computer?
Gitar, are you unaware of the techniques you can use to open a program without using a mouse?
> The only issue appears to be not enough of a tactile feedback to the user.
Actually they are looking for auditory feedback. But thanks for not understanding.
> Frankly AW, this is a case where a device that was designed to do one thing has people demanding that it do something else to their satisfaction.
Yes, and god forbid customers seek satisfaction. What on earth are they thinking?
> Should we then demand that car manufacturers install a GPS as standard equipment on all vehicles?
If you would like to refuse to buy any car that doesn’t have a GPS, I won’t give you crap for it, or post a complaint about it on a site that is supposed to be about complaining about lawsuit abuse.
> Doesn’t that need or desirability mean a choice for the consumer and not a demand?
Great. so how do blind people choose a kindle that has this feature? Oh, wait, they can’t.
> Assuming that Kindle is redesigned to make it easier for the blind to use, isn’t the next logical step in your thought process that the publisher must allow the text to speech feature enabled on their books and media?
It wasn’t the topic on the table. I mean this entire issue up until now has nothing to do with the law or lawyers. It really comes down to “do you believe the nerve of those blind people wanting to enjoy the product equally, or a least more equally?”
But, yeah, I think that in particular the publisher of textbooks used in schools should not be allowed to use proprietary “rights” to keep the disabled from being able to enjoy full and equal educational access. Frankly, I think its about the same as requiring a network to broadcast with captioning. Its just the right thing to do, especially when it comes to offering disabled students an equal opportunity. Why shouldn’t they?
And most of all, why shouldn’t a couple universities use market pressure to achieve their goals? You would think everyone here would be happy that they are not suing, but instead I hear whining that they don’t just shut up and accept a second class citizenship for the handicapped.
If you would like to refuse to buy any car that doesn’t have a GPS, I won’t give you crap for it, or post a complaint about it on a site that is supposed to be about complaining about lawsuit abuse.
Fair enough. Then why are you supporting those who give crap to a company that doesn’t include a certain level of feature that you believe in?
Yes, and god forbid customers seek satisfaction. What on earth are they thinking?
“Satisfaction” is when the product doesn’t work as advertised. Demanding a company change a product is not the same thing. That is the “nuance” that Bob noticed you seem to not wish to address.
Great. so how do blind people choose a kindle that has this feature? Oh, wait, they can’t.
Don’t buy a Kindle. Buy something else. Make a reader that does what you want it to do the way you wish it to operate.
There are alternatives other than “we demand you change this.”
But, yeah, I think that in particular the publisher of textbooks used in schools should not be allowed to use proprietary “rights” to keep the disabled from being able to enjoy full and equal educational access.
I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if the Kindle had a feature that allowed access to textbooks in a better way for blind students, you wouldn’t want that to be expanded for other electronic books and newspapers (which the Kindle supports)?
I just want to make sure that you support of the demand is for texbooks only.
Frankly, I think its about the same as requiring a network to broadcast with captioning.
Fair enough. As long as you realize that captioning is not required on all programs at all times. There are exceptions.
Let me ask you this…… let’s say that an author writes a spy novel. He doesn’t want the “speech to text” feature enabled for his book. He wants the book to be read only.
Fair or not?
Should the author be compelled by law to provide the book with the “text to speech” feature enabled?
Its just the right thing to do, especially when it comes to offering disabled students an equal opportunity. Why shouldn’t they?
……. just shut up and accept a second class citizenship for the handicapped.
This is where I think most people have problems or at least a disconnect with your position. You talk all the time about “equal opportunity” and “second class citizenship” and then demand special considerations, accommodations and treatment.
“Equal” is not “equal plus.”
“Second class” is not “citizenship with more ‘rights'” than others.
Gosh, and to think a year ago we were reading about infringement of rights to audiobooks by Amazon for including text to speech on the Kindle without permission to distribute audio books.
The pilot programs were announced before the audiobook kerfuffle was over. Don’t see a problem here as the Kindle was never, to my knowledge, marketed as a tool for the blind. I imagine that universities will rather quickly reach a point that they will provide e-books in whatever format the student desires and the students themselves will choose which device they want to use or perhaps even choose print books and write in the margins! The market will always begin with the majority and then tweak for those who are left. Cars are built for able-bodied people and then modified for those with physical handicaps (except for the blind, although I think some drivers may have used their Jedi tricks to get a license).
Rather than pick on the Kindle why not encourage schools to offer multiple formats of text books and let the students choose? In the space of a couple years they have gone from print books only to print plus Kindle texts. It won’t be much longer for more formats to become available–as long as the audio book licensing can be worked out.
Some people complain they can’t use the underline and notes feature in some Kindle books (it seems to be paid subscription/journals where that’s not enabled, no editing). You could underline and dog-ear in a print version you had in your hand. This is something that will be worked out as Amazon gets more feedback on how people are using the Kindle. Some, like us, use for public domain books and the like. Others are putting academic papers on it that are protected and yet they want to use notes and underlines. I am sure publishers will eventually enable those features if enough readers say they want it.
Sorry for 2nd post, but I do have a blind friend who lives alone and am therefore not completely unaware of what these people face on a daily basis. I also had a housemate in grad school who interpreted sign language for a deaf student when her regular interpreter could not come. The school was very willing to help the deaf student but sometimes the people needed are not available.
Might tell my children to learn ASL so they can attend college classes for free as an interpreter.
It will no doubt come as shock to the many who have fought so valiantly here that just a few months ago the very same National Federation of the Blind that started this dust up was going after Amazon and the Author’s Guild because the latter was demanding the former remove the text-to-speech capability from the Kindle 2.
Naturally no regular reader of OL would suspect such a sudden change of course by the NFB could have anything to do with free publicity, money or politics. But for the record there are several other devices that convert text to speech including every Apple Macintosh made this decade and probably every Windows machine as well.
I do not wish to revive the foolish debate with AW but I just had a brain flash. Part of the problem is that I was thinking of the very existence of the read-aloud function as an accomadation for blind people. Apparently AW does not.
No, the first question should be “why are they” as in the authors of this site. Why are they getting their panties in a bunch of this. This site is called “overlawyered” but there isn’t a lawyer in sight in that article.
And as for why I support them. Um, because I believe in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
> “Satisfaction” is [violated?] when the product doesn’t work as advertised. Demanding a company change a product is not the same thing.
Leaving aside the fact that I think your first sentence actually literally says the opposite of what you meant to say (not picking on you, just thrown by it), what the hell are you talking about? Satisfaction is satisfaction, as in I picked up your product and it met my needs. For instance, when I purchased my PSP I didn’t expect that it would not only play games and movies but serve as my portable music player, too. it just worked out that way. and as a result I am MORE satisfied as a customer than otherwise I would have been. Sheesh.
> Don’t buy a Kindle. Buy something else.
Except that something else doesn’t exist.
And I love that logic. “What? That restaurant is racially segregated and you as a black guy don’t like it? well, then eat somewhere else!”
> I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if the Kindle had a feature that allowed access to textbooks in a better way for blind students, you wouldn’t want that to be expanded for other electronic books and newspapers (which the Kindle supports)?
I haven’t thought that far ahead, and I have decided its too far off topic to bother with it.
> Fair enough. As long as you realize that captioning is not required on all programs at all times. There are exceptions.
Are you really going to stand here and say that the exceptions should include access of a student to textbooks?
I mean jesus all these kids want to do is get an education, they aren’t even suing, and you are still opposed.
> Fair or not?
Clearly not fair. But that doesn’t end the debate. There are unfair things you can do that are nonetheless your right.
And in any case if sighted people said, “I am not going to buy this author’s book until he allows everyone to be able to enjoy it” I wouldn’t denounce them, and in fact I would support that. You know, one for all and all for one? And what exactly would be wrong with that hypothetical sighted person taking that attitude. What exactly is your object?
> Should the author be compelled by law to provide the book with the “text to speech” feature enabled?
Except that is not what this post is about; its about being compelled by boycott, or at least an attempt to compel by boycott, which is a wholly different issue.
> You talk all the time about “equal opportunity” and “second class citizenship” and then demand special considerations, accommodations and treatment.
Right. “I’m not discriminating against the disabled. I am just refusing to build a wheelchair ramp. I am not discriminating against Jews. I am just requiring everyone to work on Sunday.” We have been down this road before and if you think that disabled people are getting “special treatment” you are disconnected from reality. Even with accommodations most of the time things are still unfair to the handicapped, just less so.
> “Second class” is not “citizenship with more ‘rights’” than others.
Okay forgetting again that you wrote something that is literally nonsensical, I think I get what you are trying to say. but let me ask you this. What about a courthouse? Or a voting booth? Should there be accommodations? Should a paraplegic be able to sue and be sued equally, to sit as a witness, etc. Should a blind man be allowed to vote?
According to you accommodating them gives them “more rights than others.” And thus you would say that you are strictly for equality, requiring both the paralyzed and those who are not to equally climb stairs; and the sighted and the blind to equally be required to read by sight. That’s a funny definition of equality.
But this has been a very useful thread. By objecting not to a lawsuit seeking equality, but freedom of speech, association and commerce being used to ask for accommodation, it has shown us that you guys aren’t mad about ADA litigation, so much as you are completely opposed to all accommodations. Didn’t the bible say something about not putting stumbling blocks in the way of the blind? And aside from that specific statement, there is the general injunction that one should treat others as you would have yourself treated. So apparently if you were blind, you would just be perfectly happy kept ineducated, so much so that you wouldn’t even use methods protected under the first amendment such as boycotts to get a chance at an education. If you were paraplegic, you wouldn’t mind being shut out of stores, the courthouse, the voting booth, etc.—kept powerless and in a state of perpetual dependency on others. It’s the Christian thing to do, so much so that you object even to people using a boycott to achieve equality. Nice.
Bumper
> Naturally no regular reader of OL would suspect such a sudden change of course by the NFB could have anything to do with free publicity, money or politics.
Right, the national federation for the blind is all about the benjamins. Sheesh, how stupid do you think people are?
Bob
> Part of the problem is that I was thinking of the very existence of the read-aloud function as an accomadation for blind people. Apparently AW does not.
Amazon very clearly didn’t think of blind people at all when it added that feature, or else the minimal consideration needed to accommodate them would have been made. That being said, whatever amazon’s objective intent was, I am sure some blind people actually do use it for that purpose.
And as for why I support them. Um, because I believe in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
As long as that “equal opportunity” comes with special accommodations. We get that.
it just worked out that way. and as a result I am MORE satisfied as a customer than otherwise I would have been. Sheesh.
Your satisfaction is not the same as a demand to change a product. That is what you are missing.
Except that something else doesn’t exist.
Then make one yourself.
And I love that logic. “What? That restaurant is racially segregated and you as a black guy don’t like it? well, then eat somewhere else!”
That is dis-ingeniousness and you know it. A better analogy would be that an a group of oriental food lovers demand that McDonalds carry sushi because it is the fair thing to do. You wouldn’t support that but yet you support… oh nevermind.
Are you really going to stand here and say that the exceptions should include access of a student to textbooks?
No, I am saying that you used the idea that closed captioning is “required” on all tv broadcasts. It is not. If you want to use the same scope of rules for electronic books, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were including exceptions.
Clearly not fair.
Not clearly. This is why I asked. I disagree with the notion that you have the right to say how an author sells their product. I disagree with the idea that someone has to express themselves in a certain manner.
Except that is not what this post is about; its about being compelled by boycott, or at least an attempt to compel by boycott, which is a wholly different issue.
Except you didn’t really answer the question. I suspect that is because you know where your line of reasoning goes.
Okay forgetting again that you wrote something that is literally nonsensical,
Actually, it isn’t.
Should there be accommodations?
Two words: reasonable accommodations. This gets back to the nuance that you seem to never address. You seem to think that all accommodations are reasonable. I don’t.
It’s the Christian thing to do, so much so that you object even to people using a boycott to achieve equality. Nice.
Okay. I’m done with this. Clearly you are so locked into an opinion that rational discussion is impossible. The topic is black and white to you. You believe that whatever a disabled person demands needs to be an accommodation. The rest of us are a little more nuanced than that.
34 Comments
I, for one, have always been deeply offended that Kindle’s read-aloud feature is inferior to traditional, paper textbooks!
Wait…
I am offended by everything and everyone.
Bob
guys, seriously, what is the problem here?
You just don’t like accommodation?
All we are seeing is blind people using market power to get more accommodations. if you DON’T like ADA suits, then isn’t this EXACTLY what you want? that is, rather than sue, instead use market pressure?
I mean is this site called “overlawyered” or “overaccommodated”? because if the goal is to reduce litigation, then this site should be downright happy. but somehow i sense it is not.
I don’t object to accomodation although the use of “reasonable” to mean “unlimited” offends me. I do object to every advance being festooned with lawsuits because it isn’t set up for everyone yet.
Bob
Lipton
and your objections apply to this case… how exactly?
This whole post and the first two comments seem to be just a general grunt of “ick! accommodations!”
@A.W.: Pretty much what Bob said. I have no problem with REASONABLE accommodation, and I’m just fine with lawsuits that force reasonable accommodation (though personally I think a federal agency doing routine inspections and with the power to fine/shut down, like the health inspectors, would be largely preferable). What I have a problem with is stuff like this. Universities have used regular paper textbooks for… as long as both books and schools have existed, really, and now they’ve started using Kindles to aid students, which also have a read aloud feature (albeit, apparently difficult to access). As a result, blind students have nothing taken away from them, and in fact have a little bit *more* access to materials than they did before. What is their response? To push for boycotts, because the sudden, unexpected gain wasn’t big enough?
Do you find this either reasonable or logical, A.W.? I sure don’t.
CT
First, i think your idea of federal inspectors is terrible. nothing would better ensure that 1) businesses are needlessly saddled with costs and 2) disabled people don’t even get what they actually need.
as for your issues, its private pressure. no lawsuits involved. so why does this bother people at “overlawyered?”
as for your argument that blind people are a little better off… well, they would be much better off if amazon gave blind people just a little more thought. i mean sheesh, you create a read out loud feature but you make it so you have to see in order to activate it? did they consult with even a single blind person?
AW:
“did they consult with even a single blind person?”
You feel offended whenever a product is not made for EVERTONE. I wonder what’s your reason behind that? I think in captalism the only consult you need when you make a product for profit is the MARKET. According to you, amazon should conslult the blind, deaf, aged, nearsighted, overweighted, homosexual, non English speaker etc.. for every products they sell. If I make a kindle usable only by Latavia people, do I offend you that the product is not accessible by other people? I may be stupid that I don’t make it in Chinese so I can have a wider market share, but that’s just my own stupidity and none of your business, right?
Dear W.
(I use your last name since, although I use my entire name, you see fit to address me by just my last name, without reasonable honorific. Therefore this is clearly your preferenc, although you seem to prefer to lurk behind anonymous initials for whatever reason)
Your automatic assumption that because some blind people are pressuring universities not to use it that no one involved with its production ever talked to a blind person about it seems to me an unwarranted assumption. If anything, the presence of a talking feature would indicate that some thought was given to blind people. The fact that it is not, apparently, easily activated simply indicates to me that it needs further work; indeed, earlier versions of the Kindle were poor sellers because it is still a work in progress.
While I am, in large part, in agreement with CTrees, permit me to offer an emotional response: is a negative methodology the only one that our society sees as working? Is a movement to boycott a product. because it does not serve *my* needs as well as it serves another’s, reasonable?
Bob
anon
> You feel offended whenever a product is not made for [EVERYONE]. I wonder what’s your reason behind that?
I wonder why you aren’t offended by people being physically excluded from using a product.
> According to you, amazon should [consult] the blind, deaf, aged, nearsighted, overweighted, homosexual, non English speaker etc..
I didn’t say all that, but how about not putting in physical barriers against one of the largest purchasers of audio books?
> I think in captalism the only consult you need when you make a product for profit is the MARKET.
Mmm, taking that as an advocacy of capitalism, good. And major components of that market have chosen to demand changes. So what is your objection?
Bob
> you see fit to address me by just my last name, without reasonable honorific
If you were offended, I meant nothing by it. I am not a very formal guy.
> that because some blind people are pressuring universities not to use it that no one involved with its production ever talked to a blind person about it seems to me an unwarranted assumption.
Except that is not my assumption. I was specific to the complaint.
And indeed, I don’t read anything about blind people pressuring anyone; I see 2 universities deciding that it cares about equality for the blind. Is it possible there is pressure involved? Sure. Or maybe its like Senator Harkin who gives a crap because his brother is deaf. Or maybe the schools just care because they are stand up institutions. I like how you assume that their moral stance is somehow the result of coercion.
> If anything, the presence of a talking feature would indicate that some thought was given to blind people.
No, if anything it suggests that they have no idea who buys most of their audio books, and can’t in the most basic way understand their needs. I mean, crud, all they really had to do is just close their eyes and say “can I do this without opening my eyes?” They would have figured out that their audio function didn’t really help blind people all that much.
> Is a movement to boycott a product. because it does not serve *my* needs as well as it serves another’s, reasonable?
Beats the hell out of lawsuits, for sure. And I for one applaud anyone who boycotts to aid another. There is something noble in saying, “the slight against my brother is a slight to me.”
The National Federation for the Blind is suing ASU for providing Kindles in a pilot program:
Before the legal intervention, Amazon was already working on the accommodations.
Some people just don’t like the hand the dealer game them. So, what better reason to sue the casino – or in this case, tell your friends that they only have cold tables.
AW
“Beats the hell out of lawsuits, for sure. And I for one applaud anyone who boycotts to aid another. There is something noble in saying, “the slight against my brother is a slight to me.”
I, therefore, recommend that we immediately boycott all automobile manufacturers. They do very little, if anything, go accommodate blind, or seriously impaired, drivers.
“to”, not “go”
Todd
Still not getting that there is no lawsuit involved here. okay.
Ed
Right, driving a car is exactly like reading a book.
Sorry, are you under the impression that blind people have no interaction with the written word. Sure, they can’t sight read, but i don’t get this fetishization of natural ability. humans are, by comparison to animals, the deafest, the blindest, the weakest, the slowest, animals around; we have little sense of smell, little in the way of defenses or offensive weapons, and so on. if it weren’t for our brains we would be easy meat.
But that one difference makes all the difference in the world. We can’t run as fast as the antelope fleeing from us? okay, so then we build a motorcyle. don’t have any natural weapons to speak of (no claws; our teeth are relatively blunt and our jaws are weak). Fine, then we invent a gun and shoot it. Can’t see as far as an eagle? Then we invent binoculars. Can’t see in the dark? night vision goggles. the list goes on and on. And soon we are not only making up for our shortcomings, but we are achieving things that no other species can, such as walking on the moon.
By the same count there are humans who cannot walk as well as other humans, and indeed cannot walk at all. So we build them wheelchairs and wheelchair ramps. Can’t hear? then they invent a language that allows them to communicate visually.
But if you can’t see, well, shucks, you are morally opposed to any effort to use our ingenuity to help them out. If you want to take that attitude, then take it all the way. go into the jungle, take off your woven clothing, throw away all your tools including your gun and have at it as a naked ape. See how long you go before you end up being some preditor’s breakfast. But us civilized people think that there is nothing wrong with using our minds to overcome our physical shortcomings.
And its so short sighted of you, too. We have three options in our society with what to do with handicapped people. the first is to kill them or allow them to die; hopefully no one seriously wants that. the second is to leave them in a state of dependancy, and sometimes that absolutely can’t be avoided. But there is a third way, to give them the tools needed to be independant. to butcher an old reagan quote, if you give a paraplegic a fish, he will eat for a day; if you make the docks wheelchair accessible, they will eat forever. It seems that making it possible to for handicapped to live independantly is economically efficient, as well as the moral solution given that it is a pathetic thing for a person to remain permamently in a state of dependancy.
So two schools stand up and say, “we want our blind students to be able to be independant.” this is for society the most efficient solution, and it gives those handicapped people something you and i might take for granted: the simple self-respect that comes with financial independance. and best of all, from the perspective of this site, they are doing it by market forces and not lawsuits. and you are still opposed. i don’t get it.
Care to explain to me why you should have a kindle that meets your needs but you are dead set against a kindle that meets their needs?
My, what a sweeping statement: I think that perhaps boycotting amazon.com because the access to the read-aloud feature on the Kindle is not the optimum action, therefore I am opposed to any accomadation to blind people at all. I applaud your clear, nuanced thinking.
Bob
Bob
Well, you clearly don’t like lawsuits. you don’t like market-based actions. So it begs the question what do you like? if a blind person wants accommodation, what exactly do you think they should do to get it?
And why is it unreasonable to think that your answer really is, “just suffer–life sucks”?
And for that matter, am i really to believe you oppose all boycotts for all purposes? Dr. King’s montgomery bus boycott, for instance, where people refused to ride the bus until a more equal policy was adopted–do you think he was wrong to do that? how about the boston tea party?
And if you are not opposed to all boycots, why then are you opposed to this one?
Do please respond with particularity.
I notice you have not responded to my comments about nuance, which requires a lot more facts in the case than have been offered by you — or frankly, me.
However, you may notice that while we have bene bickering, NOBODY SPECIAL has posted that Amazon.com has already been working on accomodations, even before the National Federation for the Blind (which the blind man I know best opposes as being composed of sighted people who know little of the trials of being blind and thus not particularly useful) decided to sue.
So, apparently, amazon.com has been in touch with people, has been trying to accomodate them. While it would require more effort than I — or you, apparently — would care to put in to determine if amazon.com has been making a real effort to deal with these issues — which would, by the way, be very useful for additional market share — the comments here indicate that the company has been making some effort.
As I have no intention to purchase a kindle shortly, this discussion is only of academic interest to me.
As to what conditions I would take part in a boycott, they would have to include clearly immoral actions on the part of whoever is being boycotted and a sense that the boycott would be successful. I have, in the past, refused to buy products from companies I consider immoral, including Archer-Daniels-Midland, but I doubt very much it had much effect on them.
I do think that some one shouting that he is being oppressed is required before I will admit to the fact. Hard-hearted of me, perhaps. If it possible that you lean to the characterization that everyone in business is a heartless bastrd ready to shred children in order to make another six cents?
Bob
Bob
So we find out that you are not opposed to all boycotts just this one. Apparently you don’t see enough justice in providing accommodations to the blind.
And that is what your objections are really about, isn’t it? you just don’t like accommodations.
Well, God forbid you should ever find yourself in that position.
I’m sorry, you’re right (but you knew that, didn’t you).
Nothing like a car.
How about a TV, Movie theater, camera, camcorder?
Should we be boycotting them?
Just tell me who to boycott and doggonit, I’ll boycott.
We can start with Walmart, maybe?
My son has size 14 feet. They don’t carry size 14 shoes. We should make them. If they are going to sell to one, they must sell to all, right?
Ed
How about this metaphor? How about like a computer. Now i have no visual impairment (unless you count my glasses which actually has “made by the Coca-cola bottling company stamped on the side but nonetheless fully correct my vision), and requested no modifications to this i am typing on computer, but right now, i can hit Start > Accessories >Accessibility and choose the program “narrator” and my computer will do pretty much everything that they are asking amazon’s kindle to do. try it out. now are you really telling me that this is so much to ask for, so much that you oppose even using market forces to ask for it?
A.W.
Just for the record, that thing there you suggested? I did try it out, just now. It *definitely* requires sight to activate (well, at least on Vista, cannot confirm on other operating systems), which makes it better… how?
Dear A.W.
What accomodation? How much accomodation? Is an effort being made?
Again, it is about nuance. But you don’t recognize that, do you?
End of discussion. You now have the floor and can rave on about what a terrible person I am.
Bob
Bob
> What accomodation? How much accomodation? Is an effort being made?
> Again, it is about nuance. But you don’t recognize that, do you?
so let me understand you. you don’t know enough to evaluate their claims, but nonetheless you denounce it? um, okay.
Todd
I have seen blind people do it themselves without the help of a sighted person. you’d be surprised.
I have seen blind people do it themselves without the help of a sighted person. you’d be surprised.
You mean that someone who blind can do something without a tactile feel of the computer?
That is great.
It also throws out the “accommodation” in the case of the Kindle. The only issue appears to be not enough of a tactile feedback to the user. As you have just illustrated, there is no need for tactile feedback when dealing with an electronic device.
Frankly AW, this is a case where a device that was designed to do one thing has people demanding that it do something else to their satisfaction. It isn’t good enough that the thing has state of the art text to speech reading capabilities, it has to be designed to do a certain thing a certain way.
Many people get lost while driving. Should we then demand that car manufacturers install a GPS as standard equipment on all vehicles? Or is the GPS a feature that some people need and some may not? Doesn’t that need or desirability mean a choice for the consumer and not a demand?
You have mentioned that people that are blind buy the most audiobooks. I am not sure that the statistics back that up. Less than one percent of the population is legally blind, but 28% have bought audiobooks.
Finally, whether Kindle is able to utilize the text to speech feature is based on permission from the publisher of the book / material. Assuming that Kindle is redesigned to make it easier for the blind to use, isn’t the next logical step in your thought process that the publisher must allow the text to speech feature enabled on their books and media?
If that is the case, then where does control of ones intellectual property begin and end? Are you really going to say that a publisher / author has to express themselves in a certain media or they cannot express or publish at all?
Gitar
> You mean that someone who blind can do something without a tactile feel of the computer?
Gitar, are you unaware of the techniques you can use to open a program without using a mouse?
> The only issue appears to be not enough of a tactile feedback to the user.
Actually they are looking for auditory feedback. But thanks for not understanding.
> Frankly AW, this is a case where a device that was designed to do one thing has people demanding that it do something else to their satisfaction.
Yes, and god forbid customers seek satisfaction. What on earth are they thinking?
> Should we then demand that car manufacturers install a GPS as standard equipment on all vehicles?
If you would like to refuse to buy any car that doesn’t have a GPS, I won’t give you crap for it, or post a complaint about it on a site that is supposed to be about complaining about lawsuit abuse.
> Doesn’t that need or desirability mean a choice for the consumer and not a demand?
Great. so how do blind people choose a kindle that has this feature? Oh, wait, they can’t.
> Assuming that Kindle is redesigned to make it easier for the blind to use, isn’t the next logical step in your thought process that the publisher must allow the text to speech feature enabled on their books and media?
It wasn’t the topic on the table. I mean this entire issue up until now has nothing to do with the law or lawyers. It really comes down to “do you believe the nerve of those blind people wanting to enjoy the product equally, or a least more equally?”
But, yeah, I think that in particular the publisher of textbooks used in schools should not be allowed to use proprietary “rights” to keep the disabled from being able to enjoy full and equal educational access. Frankly, I think its about the same as requiring a network to broadcast with captioning. Its just the right thing to do, especially when it comes to offering disabled students an equal opportunity. Why shouldn’t they?
And most of all, why shouldn’t a couple universities use market pressure to achieve their goals? You would think everyone here would be happy that they are not suing, but instead I hear whining that they don’t just shut up and accept a second class citizenship for the handicapped.
If you would like to refuse to buy any car that doesn’t have a GPS, I won’t give you crap for it, or post a complaint about it on a site that is supposed to be about complaining about lawsuit abuse.
Fair enough. Then why are you supporting those who give crap to a company that doesn’t include a certain level of feature that you believe in?
Yes, and god forbid customers seek satisfaction. What on earth are they thinking?
“Satisfaction” is when the product doesn’t work as advertised. Demanding a company change a product is not the same thing. That is the “nuance” that Bob noticed you seem to not wish to address.
Great. so how do blind people choose a kindle that has this feature? Oh, wait, they can’t.
Don’t buy a Kindle. Buy something else. Make a reader that does what you want it to do the way you wish it to operate.
There are alternatives other than “we demand you change this.”
But, yeah, I think that in particular the publisher of textbooks used in schools should not be allowed to use proprietary “rights” to keep the disabled from being able to enjoy full and equal educational access.
I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if the Kindle had a feature that allowed access to textbooks in a better way for blind students, you wouldn’t want that to be expanded for other electronic books and newspapers (which the Kindle supports)?
I just want to make sure that you support of the demand is for texbooks only.
Frankly, I think its about the same as requiring a network to broadcast with captioning.
Fair enough. As long as you realize that captioning is not required on all programs at all times. There are exceptions.
Let me ask you this…… let’s say that an author writes a spy novel. He doesn’t want the “speech to text” feature enabled for his book. He wants the book to be read only.
Fair or not?
Should the author be compelled by law to provide the book with the “text to speech” feature enabled?
Its just the right thing to do, especially when it comes to offering disabled students an equal opportunity. Why shouldn’t they?
……. just shut up and accept a second class citizenship for the handicapped.
This is where I think most people have problems or at least a disconnect with your position. You talk all the time about “equal opportunity” and “second class citizenship” and then demand special considerations, accommodations and treatment.
“Equal” is not “equal plus.”
“Second class” is not “citizenship with more ‘rights'” than others.
Gosh, and to think a year ago we were reading about infringement of rights to audiobooks by Amazon for including text to speech on the Kindle without permission to distribute audio books.
The pilot programs were announced before the audiobook kerfuffle was over. Don’t see a problem here as the Kindle was never, to my knowledge, marketed as a tool for the blind. I imagine that universities will rather quickly reach a point that they will provide e-books in whatever format the student desires and the students themselves will choose which device they want to use or perhaps even choose print books and write in the margins! The market will always begin with the majority and then tweak for those who are left. Cars are built for able-bodied people and then modified for those with physical handicaps (except for the blind, although I think some drivers may have used their Jedi tricks to get a license).
Rather than pick on the Kindle why not encourage schools to offer multiple formats of text books and let the students choose? In the space of a couple years they have gone from print books only to print plus Kindle texts. It won’t be much longer for more formats to become available–as long as the audio book licensing can be worked out.
Some people complain they can’t use the underline and notes feature in some Kindle books (it seems to be paid subscription/journals where that’s not enabled, no editing). You could underline and dog-ear in a print version you had in your hand. This is something that will be worked out as Amazon gets more feedback on how people are using the Kindle. Some, like us, use for public domain books and the like. Others are putting academic papers on it that are protected and yet they want to use notes and underlines. I am sure publishers will eventually enable those features if enough readers say they want it.
Seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Sorry for 2nd post, but I do have a blind friend who lives alone and am therefore not completely unaware of what these people face on a daily basis. I also had a housemate in grad school who interpreted sign language for a deaf student when her regular interpreter could not come. The school was very willing to help the deaf student but sometimes the people needed are not available.
Might tell my children to learn ASL so they can attend college classes for free as an interpreter.
It will no doubt come as shock to the many who have fought so valiantly here that just a few months ago the very same National Federation of the Blind that started this dust up was going after Amazon and the Author’s Guild because the latter was demanding the former remove the text-to-speech capability from the Kindle 2.
http://www.acb.org/magazine/2009/bf062009-1.html
Naturally no regular reader of OL would suspect such a sudden change of course by the NFB could have anything to do with free publicity, money or politics. But for the record there are several other devices that convert text to speech including every Apple Macintosh made this decade and probably every Windows machine as well.
As always, follow the money.
I do not wish to revive the foolish debate with AW but I just had a brain flash. Part of the problem is that I was thinking of the very existence of the read-aloud function as an accomadation for blind people. Apparently AW does not.
You may continue with the bickering.
Bob
Calling Comcast
3 speeds 1 mb sec $41
6 mb sec $59
16 $69
Andre
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Physician subcontracting
Defn of a referral.
Emergent care?
Help them to bill.
Put in task list.
Gitar
> Fair enough. Then why are you
No, the first question should be “why are they” as in the authors of this site. Why are they getting their panties in a bunch of this. This site is called “overlawyered” but there isn’t a lawyer in sight in that article.
And as for why I support them. Um, because I believe in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
> “Satisfaction” is [violated?] when the product doesn’t work as advertised. Demanding a company change a product is not the same thing.
Leaving aside the fact that I think your first sentence actually literally says the opposite of what you meant to say (not picking on you, just thrown by it), what the hell are you talking about? Satisfaction is satisfaction, as in I picked up your product and it met my needs. For instance, when I purchased my PSP I didn’t expect that it would not only play games and movies but serve as my portable music player, too. it just worked out that way. and as a result I am MORE satisfied as a customer than otherwise I would have been. Sheesh.
> Don’t buy a Kindle. Buy something else.
Except that something else doesn’t exist.
And I love that logic. “What? That restaurant is racially segregated and you as a black guy don’t like it? well, then eat somewhere else!”
> I just want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. Are you saying that if the Kindle had a feature that allowed access to textbooks in a better way for blind students, you wouldn’t want that to be expanded for other electronic books and newspapers (which the Kindle supports)?
I haven’t thought that far ahead, and I have decided its too far off topic to bother with it.
> Fair enough. As long as you realize that captioning is not required on all programs at all times. There are exceptions.
Are you really going to stand here and say that the exceptions should include access of a student to textbooks?
I mean jesus all these kids want to do is get an education, they aren’t even suing, and you are still opposed.
> Fair or not?
Clearly not fair. But that doesn’t end the debate. There are unfair things you can do that are nonetheless your right.
And in any case if sighted people said, “I am not going to buy this author’s book until he allows everyone to be able to enjoy it” I wouldn’t denounce them, and in fact I would support that. You know, one for all and all for one? And what exactly would be wrong with that hypothetical sighted person taking that attitude. What exactly is your object?
> Should the author be compelled by law to provide the book with the “text to speech” feature enabled?
Except that is not what this post is about; its about being compelled by boycott, or at least an attempt to compel by boycott, which is a wholly different issue.
> You talk all the time about “equal opportunity” and “second class citizenship” and then demand special considerations, accommodations and treatment.
Right. “I’m not discriminating against the disabled. I am just refusing to build a wheelchair ramp. I am not discriminating against Jews. I am just requiring everyone to work on Sunday.” We have been down this road before and if you think that disabled people are getting “special treatment” you are disconnected from reality. Even with accommodations most of the time things are still unfair to the handicapped, just less so.
> “Second class” is not “citizenship with more ‘rights’” than others.
Okay forgetting again that you wrote something that is literally nonsensical, I think I get what you are trying to say. but let me ask you this. What about a courthouse? Or a voting booth? Should there be accommodations? Should a paraplegic be able to sue and be sued equally, to sit as a witness, etc. Should a blind man be allowed to vote?
According to you accommodating them gives them “more rights than others.” And thus you would say that you are strictly for equality, requiring both the paralyzed and those who are not to equally climb stairs; and the sighted and the blind to equally be required to read by sight. That’s a funny definition of equality.
But this has been a very useful thread. By objecting not to a lawsuit seeking equality, but freedom of speech, association and commerce being used to ask for accommodation, it has shown us that you guys aren’t mad about ADA litigation, so much as you are completely opposed to all accommodations. Didn’t the bible say something about not putting stumbling blocks in the way of the blind? And aside from that specific statement, there is the general injunction that one should treat others as you would have yourself treated. So apparently if you were blind, you would just be perfectly happy kept ineducated, so much so that you wouldn’t even use methods protected under the first amendment such as boycotts to get a chance at an education. If you were paraplegic, you wouldn’t mind being shut out of stores, the courthouse, the voting booth, etc.—kept powerless and in a state of perpetual dependency on others. It’s the Christian thing to do, so much so that you object even to people using a boycott to achieve equality. Nice.
Bumper
> Naturally no regular reader of OL would suspect such a sudden change of course by the NFB could have anything to do with free publicity, money or politics.
Right, the national federation for the blind is all about the benjamins. Sheesh, how stupid do you think people are?
Bob
> Part of the problem is that I was thinking of the very existence of the read-aloud function as an accomadation for blind people. Apparently AW does not.
Amazon very clearly didn’t think of blind people at all when it added that feature, or else the minimal consideration needed to accommodate them would have been made. That being said, whatever amazon’s objective intent was, I am sure some blind people actually do use it for that purpose.
my apologies, i cut and pasted more than i meant to.
And as for why I support them. Um, because I believe in EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.
As long as that “equal opportunity” comes with special accommodations. We get that.
it just worked out that way. and as a result I am MORE satisfied as a customer than otherwise I would have been. Sheesh.
Your satisfaction is not the same as a demand to change a product. That is what you are missing.
Except that something else doesn’t exist.
Then make one yourself.
And I love that logic. “What? That restaurant is racially segregated and you as a black guy don’t like it? well, then eat somewhere else!”
That is dis-ingeniousness and you know it. A better analogy would be that an a group of oriental food lovers demand that McDonalds carry sushi because it is the fair thing to do. You wouldn’t support that but yet you support… oh nevermind.
Are you really going to stand here and say that the exceptions should include access of a student to textbooks?
No, I am saying that you used the idea that closed captioning is “required” on all tv broadcasts. It is not. If you want to use the same scope of rules for electronic books, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were including exceptions.
Clearly not fair.
Not clearly. This is why I asked. I disagree with the notion that you have the right to say how an author sells their product. I disagree with the idea that someone has to express themselves in a certain manner.
Except that is not what this post is about; its about being compelled by boycott, or at least an attempt to compel by boycott, which is a wholly different issue.
Except you didn’t really answer the question. I suspect that is because you know where your line of reasoning goes.
Okay forgetting again that you wrote something that is literally nonsensical,
Actually, it isn’t.
Should there be accommodations?
Two words: reasonable accommodations. This gets back to the nuance that you seem to never address. You seem to think that all accommodations are reasonable. I don’t.
It’s the Christian thing to do, so much so that you object even to people using a boycott to achieve equality. Nice.
Okay. I’m done with this. Clearly you are so locked into an opinion that rational discussion is impossible. The topic is black and white to you. You believe that whatever a disabled person demands needs to be an accommodation. The rest of us are a little more nuanced than that.