All the discussion of consistency of NFB or ACB philosophy surrounding this
issue is something I find quite thought provoking. As a former member of
both organizations, but not a current member of either, I do not understand
there to be consistency on either side. It seems that all the issues being
discussed are ancillary and that I don't understand there to be fundamental
consistency on either side. I have asked myself the following questions and
wonder what the answers are.
(Maybe these questions should not be discussed on this list ... as
suggested by an earlier post. So, if a member of either organization wishes
to contact me off-line, please do. And, if there is an appropriate forum
for these where the traffic is not unbearable, please clue me in.)
1. Where is it appropriate to use the word "right" in place of the word
"privilege?" Do we have a right to "equal" access to information,
entertainment, etc. Do we have a right to "equal" freedom to be mobile in
our society? I see heavy use of the word "right" on both sides. It scares
me. What if we took these concepts to their logical conclusions and applied
them to a variety of human conditions that are frequently seen as limiting,
e.g., being tall, being short, being heavy, ...? All of these conditions
have costs.
2. How much freedom would we like to have to spend our wealth as we see fit
personally verses collectively? If we, as a society, agree to favor a more
Halmiltonian model with less personal freedom and more collective decision
making, a view common to both ACB and NFB as evidenced by their support of
SSDI just for being blind, then how can one consistently make a
principal-based argument denying DVS entertainment to blind citizens?
3. What principals guide the NFB or ACB in deciding to what extent they
should support the intervention of government in private business decision
making? Is it consistent to support laws that allow suits against AOL's
choice to ignore the blind market while telling the rest of the
entertainment industry they have a "right" to ignore that market? And, does
supporting that type of intervention across the board make economic sense?
If tall people demanded that the auto industry accommodate them with every
model, how would US auto makers fair against the rest of the world? Are we
starting to view equality in the eyes of the law synonymously with equality
in the market place?
(Views expressed herein are mine and not necessarily those of IBM.)
Matt King
Accessibility End User Advocate
IBM Business Transformation/CIO
Phone: (719) 520-3006, Tie line: 8-656-3006
Internet: [log in to unmask]
Steve Zielinski <[log in to unmask]>@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> on 04/22/2001
05:03:58 AM
Please respond to [log in to unmask]
Sent by: "VICUG-L: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
cc:
Subject: Fw: Comment from Charles Crawford on Video Description dvs
From: Charles Crawford[SMTP:
[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 4:57 PM
Hi Everyone,
I have been reading the postings on the various lists and only wish
that I had the time to respond to all of them separately, but here are
some
thoughts that hopefully will not repeat what I have already written.
* Jim Gashell makes the point that there is a price to be paid for
any mandate, and then goes on to basically point out that mandated video
description would incur a price of our standing within society in the
negative. This caused me to think about what kind of world the
Federation
must be contemplating as their goal. would it be a world in which we have
the right to travel with our canes and dogs on the subways, but not to
have
the same warning information commonly available to others at the sides of
the pits? How about a world in which we have the right to travel, but not
to the same walk-don't-walk information at traffic intersections available
to other pedestrians? Maybe a world in which we have the right to move
freely along sidewalks, but not to have detectable warnings where the
Federation has determined what slope is steep enough for us to know where
the intersection starts? An now a world in which we have the right to a
great deal of electronic information, but not to have the same access as
others to video description? Is that the kind of equality we all should
be
demanding? Their is another way to view this.
Imagine our living in a world where the kinds of access ACB has
sought could really come true? NO more blind people injured or dyeing
from
falls to the tracks, being run down by vehicles, stepping out into traffic
because we did not notice the gentle slope of the ramp, or having to ask
others what was going on in a television or motion picture event. Its not
just about equal access to information, its also about the consequences of
not having that information.
No, we will not die from not having video description, but yes, we
will continue to have to rely upon others for something that the FCC
currently has recognized we need. If the Federation believes there is a
harm to having mandated video description, then perhaps they should
consider the harm that will continue without it. For some it will be the
continued guesswork of trying to understand what happened in the program
and not having anyone else around to let them know. for others it will be
the difficulty of having to ask another person to explain what is going
on, and of course highlighting their own blindness by having to do so.
For
others it will be the frustration of knowing the person who is describing
may not get it right, may give only the shortest of details, may be
annoyed
by having to distract their attention away from their own enjoyment of the
program, may be embarrassed at their own lack of knowing how to describe
events, or may not really want to be bothered by having to describe
things.
What equality is in this? Why should we be forced to accept a lesser
standard of program enjoyment simply because we are blind?
yes, there is a price to be paid, but that price is for having to
listen to a philosophy that dictates we put our own or the safety of
others
at risk, or that we make a choice between using our imaginations to often
erroneously fill in the visual blanks or be forced to ask others to let us
know what is going on. That is not the kind of equality that makes sense;
it is the price that some would have us pay for their philosophical ghosts
in the closet that are attacked but never appear.
* Some of the Federationists have expressed a concern for the tone
of my postings and have accused me of attempting to sew discord within
their ranks. I would direct their attention to the law suit the
Federation
filed as the appropriate object of their condemnation. It is what
threatens to do away with what we blind people have worked to get. My
tone
only reflects the level of disgust and sense of betrayal that comes from
an
action so odious and antithetic to the interests of the blind that only
its
removal can begin to repair the damage it has already done to our
community. In short, it is one thing to have even a strong opinion, but
it
is quite another after a federal agency has made its determinations which
included that there was in fact a population to clearly benefit, to then
actually go to court and seek recision of the rights gained and to impose
that view on all of us!
The discord issue is for NFB to address internally. The fact that
many Federationists are ripped about what their organization has done and
I
know because I get the mail; only points to a need to rethink the issue
rather than trying to side step it all by complaining that I am sewing any
discord. If ACB were to have pulled the kind of repugnant action as did
the Federation, then I would hope that folks would be asking our
membership to reconsider and change the direction of our organization. If
this generates discord, then so be it.
I will end this posting on a personal note. I am sure that I am
not
the only blind person in the world who has had to ask for assistance and
felt the frustration and sometimes embarrassment of having to do so. I do
this when it is necessary and I avoid it when it is not. I don't need the
Federation to define for me what I really need and don't. I believe in
this way, I am pretty much the same as all other blind folks. if I don't
want video description then I won't turn it on, but let's stop this
disgrace of trying to keep it from being available at all.
Now it is time to focus on the entertainment industry and their
suit. We have lots to do. If the Federation joins with us then that
would
be a wonderful thing to see, and if they stay on their same course, then
they will live with a legacy for which no organization could be proud.
The
choice is in their hands and while we anticipate winning in any event;
history will judge them accordingly.
-- Charlie Crawford.
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
