Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Deaf Politics in print!

Deaf Politics is mentioned in an article by Sarah Segal, "Power to the People: Revolution of Consumer Advocacy", in the Winter 2010-11 issue of NADmag. Click on the image to view at a larger size:


TEXT OF THE
NADMAG ARTICLE:


Designed for Deaf Users

Another up and coming leader in consumer advocacy is Deaf Politics (DP), which is a blog at http://blog.deafpolitics.org, where deaf writers voluntarily contribute articles about deaf and non-deaf related political issues. Founder of DP, Jessica Thurber, said that she launched the blog in March 2010 with the hopes that it might serve as a springboard for eventually founding an organization. "I established DP with the goal of setting up a central information hub for deaf people to visit and gather much-needed resources, read up on all things political, and to connect with each other. Currently, there are no official 'members' [of DP] but I have been focusing on expanding the fan base so that there is a community ready for whenever the full website launches."

Her inspiration to found DP stemmed from a desire to create a "deaf-friendly site that focuses on all things political," she said. "I have a user-based/user-centric style in mind. I have a specific vision of what I want the website to be like and I look forward to making it a reality soon."

DP, which provides constant, current information from a variety of bloggers, also has a presence in the micro-blogging world, with 1,183 Facebook likes and upwards of 560 followers on Twitter.


Special thanks to Erikson Young for the scan.

Monday, March 28, 2011

What is an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)?

BY HAYLEY KOTEEN

We are told that the legislative branch makes the laws and the executive branch enforces them. But that is not entirely the case. Through the executive branch there are administrative agencies that promulgate rules and regulations, which have the force and effect of law. If you fail to follow these rules and regulations, you will be subject to a penalty.

Congress must delegate the rulemaking power to a specific agency in order for that administrative agency to promulgate a rule. For example, the reason that the Department of Justice (DOJ) (an administrative agency) has the authority to make rules regarding accessibility in public accommodations is because Congress delegated this responsibility to the DOJ in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b). After there has been a delegation, the agency is required to follow certain procedures. Some statutes require what is referred to as a “hearing on the record.” These hearings look similar to a trial in court—evidence is presented and there is an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

The ADA does not require a hearing on the record, so the hearing looks more like a legislative hearing, where individuals and organizations give testimony on the record in support of or against a rule or regulation. Statutes like the ADA are required to abide by Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which are the procedures for “Notice and Comment Rulemaking.”

For notice and comment rulemaking, the APA requires the agency to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the federal register and provide an opportunity for interested persons to comment. The final rule must be very similar to the NPRM in order to comply with the law; otherwise, the rule can be challenged in court. Thus, if the agency receives too many negative comments they may have to draft an entirely new NPRM, starting the process all over again.


"... if the agency receives too many negative comments they may have to draft an entirely new NPRM, starting the process all over again."


To avoid this, most NPRM’s contain the text of the actual rule that it proposed to adopt. Agencies do this in order to protect themselves from litigation. To decide what the NPRM’s language should look like, agencies have increasingly promulgated what is known as the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

The APA does not require ANPRM’s but many agencies utilize them to get a sense of what the regulated community would and would not like to see in the regulation. The ANPRM is usually a generalized statement of what the agency purports to do. Once the ANPRM is published in the federal register, the comment period is usually around 6 months. From there it can take between 18 and 20 months to analyze the issues raised before promulgating an NPRM. Once the NPRM is published in the federal register, the comment period is also around 6 months and the agency can take around another year to analyze those comments before promulgating the final rule. When a final rule is promulgated, it does not take effect right away; usually, the agency gives the regulated community a grace period to change their practices accordingly.

Applying this to the DOJ’s ANPRM on web accessibility in my last post (2/27/11), it is understandable why we likely will not see any real changes for a few years. The comment period for that ANPRM ended in January. We might not see an NPRM until around the summer or fall of 2012. If the DOJ issues an NPRM at that time, the comment period is usually around six months. When the comment period closes it can take over a year for the agency to promulgate a final rule. This depends on the number of comments the agency gets, how many of those comments are negative, and how significant the negative comments are. My guess is we will see a final rule on web accessibility around summer or fall of 2013 at the earliest.

According to the ANPRM, the DOJ is considering an effective date of 6 months after the rule is published in the federal register. Because of this whole process, it will probably be years before we see any regulatory changes. Hopefully, once an NPRM is issued, private businesses will make changes on their own accord in preparation for a final rule. This will not be enforceable, however, until the actual regulation is enacted.


ABOUT HAYLEY KOTEEN
Hayley Koteen graduated from Towson University with a B.A. in Deaf Studies and Social Science. As an undergrad, she worked for the Maryland Governor's Office of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as well interned one semester at the Maryland General Assembly with Delegate Kirill Reznik of District 39. Currently a second year law student at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardoza School of Law in New York, she hopes to pursue a career in deaf law after graduation. As a future attorney for the deaf community, she aspires to advocate to better implement laws such as the ADA, and to improve access to interpreters in courts and social service agencies.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

It's official: Class action lawsuit against Netflix

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION FILED AGAINST NETFLIX; LAWSUIT ALLEGES POPULAR MOVIE WEBSITE FAILED TO CAPTION STREAMING VIDEO LIBRARY IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, MISLED DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING CUSTOMERS

The prominent San Diego-based Weston Firm has filed a class action lawsuit in San Jose federal court against Los Gatos, California-based Netflix, Inc., alleging the ubiquitous provider of on-demand streaming video programming failed to adequately caption its streaming library in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law. The suit also alleges Netflix misled deaf and hard of hearing customers about the amount of subtitled content available and the rate at which it was adding subtitled content to its online database. The lawsuit’s lead plaintiff, Donald Cullen, is deaf, and relied on Netflix’s promises that it was working to subtitle its streaming video library.


“For too long Netflix has been promising its millions of deaf and hard of hearing members that it would caption its streaming video library, but Netflix has been dragging its feet. This lawsuit was brought to ensure that the deaf and hard of hearing have full and equal access to content most of us take for granted,” says Jack Fitzgerald, partner at the Weston Firm, which represents Mr. Cullen and the putative classes.



"This lawsuit was brought to ensure that the deaf and hard of hearing have full and equal access to ceontent most of us take for granted."


The lawsuit alleges that after almost two years of promising its deaf and hard of hearing members more subtitles, today only about six percent of Netflix’s streaming programming is captioned, and that Netflix’s captioning rate is “anemic.”


“Netflix initially released streaming to the public in 2008. However, none of the movies were captioned. So while the hearing world at large could enjoy this new feature, the deaf were left behind,” says Cullen, an activist in the deaf community.


Despite its failure to provide adequate closed captioning, Netflix announced last November a low-priced, streaming-only subscription option, while at the same time raising prices on all other DVD-by-mail plans. The suit charges that for the deaf and hard of hearing— for whom the streaming-only plan is effectively useless—this amounts to unfair “deaf tax.”


Gregory S. Weston, managing partner of the Weston Firm says, “We are asking the court to certify a nationwide class and enter an injunction to bring a stop to Netflix’s wrongful conduct. I urge any other consumer that has been victimized by these tactics to contact my office.”



"We are asking the court to certify a nationwide class and enter an injunction to bring a stop to Netflix's wrongful conduct."


The case, which is styled Cullen v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. CV 11-1199 (N.D. Cal.), was filed on March 11, 2011. A copy of the Complaint is available at http://www.westonfirm.com/Netflix-Complaint.pdf.


Attorney Gregory S. Weston can be reached at 858-488-1672, or greg@westonfirm.com. Attorney Jack Fitzgerald can be reached at 408-459-0305, or jack@westonfirm.com. More information is available at the firm’s website, www.westonfirm.com.

Friday, March 11, 2011

Why I am political: #8

BY CHRISTOPHER JON HEUER
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." This quotation has been attributed to Benjamin Franklin, though some contest this. Personally I don't care. It's true. Smart, competent, selfless, courageous people seek power largely because stupid, incompetent, selfish cowards seek it also. I'm political because I choose to ally myself with the former group and bitterly resist the latter.