Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2010, 04:39:56 AM
-
.Obama Justice Department uses ADA to harm the disabled, risk lives, and undermine health and safety
August 9th, 2010 1:23 pm ET.Related articles
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____
“Amazon.com . . . tried to sell a talking Kindle reader, but” the Justice Department “said it couldn’t because the button to make the Kindle talk didn’t have braille. Never mind that books neither talk nor have Braille buttons telling them to talk.” Obama’s radical appointees at the Justice Department, like Tom Perez, think that it’s better to have NO accommodation for the disabled, then an imperfect accommodation. The Obama Justice Department also used the threat of suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act to prevent colleges from using Kindle to lighten “the textbook load on their student body by moving to e-book formats.” Blocking Kindle harms people with chronic back problems.
The Obama Justice Department is also threatening South Carolina with a lawsuit over an anti-AIDS program that saves lives in the state’s prisons. South Carolina tests incoming inmates for AIDS, and “half of those tested never knew they were infected. The testing policy saves lives because treatment starts immediately, at state expense.” The Administration ridiculously claims this is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. But the Supreme Court has made clear that prisons have broad powers to restricts’ inmates rights to protect health or safety, or to promote any other legitimate correctional or penological purposes. (Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decision in Beard v. Banks says that prisons can even restrict what inmates read. South Carolina is not trying to do anything that extreme.)
The Obama administration also claims that the policy violates the disabled-rights laws, even though it saves lives, because it provides “separate living facilities” for prisoners with AIDS. South Carolina’s program “has worked so well since 1998 that there has only been a single transmission of HIV/AIDS to a single prisoner.” In other prison systems, many lives have been lost due to transmission of HIV to previously uninfected inmates. The Obama Justice Department’s demand could thus result in many deaths.
The Obama Administration’s claim is flatly inconsistent with a federal appeals court ruling that held that even a tiny risk of HIV transmission can justify sweeping anti-AIDS measures like not employing a surgeon with AIDS, given the lethal nature of AIDS. (See Doe v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., 50 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995).) That ruling is binding precedent in South Carolina, and it rejected challenges under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and its sister statute, the Rehabilitation Act.
Moreover, South Carolina is not trying to go nearly as far as the federal appeals court held was permissible, in its sensible measure to save lives–it is not firing anyone, just housing them separately. Prison officials are given more leeway to take HIV-positive status into account than employers are, given the extra deference that courts give to prison administrators. Even the most liberal federal appeals court upheld a policy of denying inmates who tested positive for HIV access to food service jobs. (See Gates v. Rowland, 39 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir. 1994).)
The Obama administration also wants to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to regulate the Internet. It also has signed an international treaty on disabilities-rights that could undermine American sovereignty.
Deferring to the Justice Department, the most-liberal federal appeals court recently ruled against Chipotle in a lawsuit that will lead to hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages and attorney fees–and a catch-22 against the company, which must lower its employee counter tops to make them easier for disabled patrons to view (to satisfy the ADA), but must simultaneously keep them high to comply with worker-safety rules. (Ironically, the court’s ruling in Antoninetti v. Chipotle conflicted with one of its own past rulings, violating the rule that a panel of an appeals court cannot contradict an earlier panel. It also rewarded nuisance litigation.)
http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/obama-justice-department-uses-ada-to-harm-the-disabled-risk-lives-and-undermine-health-and-safety
________________________ ________________________ ________________________
Dear God, whoever voted for this Admn needs to repent asap.
-
I thought this story had to be a joke when i first read it, so I looked into it a little more. Nope - its more vile, disgusting, abhorent, and scum bag crap from Obama
________________________ __________________
Home > ADA > Departments of Justice and Education Warn College and University Use of Kindle and Other E-Readers May Violate ADA
Posted on June 30, 2010 by Todd Sorensen
http://www.northwesteducationlaw.com/2010/06/articles/ada/departments-of-justice-and-education-warn-college-and-university-use-of-kindle-and-other-ereaders-may-violate-ada/
Departments of Justice and Education Warn College and University Use of Kindle and Other E-Readers May Violate ADA
On June 29, 2010, the Department of Justice and Department of Education issued a joint warning letter regarding the use of “dedicated electronic readers” in colleges and universities. The term “dedicated electronic readers” encompasses a number of new handheld devices which allow students to download and read books, such as Amazon’s Kindle, Sony’s Reader Daily Edition, and Barnes & Nobles’ Nook.
The DOJ and DOE’s concern with electronic readers is that most are not accessible to students who are blind or have limited vision because they lack “an accessible text-to-speech function.” As a result, according to the DOJ and DOE, use of such devices may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”):
Requiring use of an emerging technology in a classroom environment when the technology is inaccessible to an entire population of individuals with disabilities – individuals with visual disabilities – is discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) unless those individuals are provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
The ADA requires that places of public accommodation—which under 28 C.F.R. 36.104(10) expressly includes private educational institutions—must provide full and equal access to disabled individuals as detailed in 28 C.F.R. 36.201-204.
The warning from the DOJ and DOE comes on the heels of the DOJ’s January 2010 settlement with Case Western Reserve University, Pace University, and Reed College, resolving the DOJ’s claims against those institutions arising out of their use of Amazon’s Kindle DX. Under the terms of that settlement, the institutions agreed not to “purchase, recommend or promote” the use of electronic book readers “unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision.”
Tags: ADA, Accommodation, Americans with Disabilities Act, Department of Education, department of justice, doj, electronic reader, kindle
-
You really can't make this up any more.
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Why did feds claim Kindle violates civil rights?
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
August 3, 2010
The Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks. (AP)
Did you know the Justice Department threatened several universities with legal action because they took part in an experimental program to allow students to use the Amazon Kindle for textbooks?
Last year, the schools -- among them Princeton, Arizona State and Case Western Reserve -- wanted to know if e-book readers would be more convenient and less costly than traditional textbooks. The environmentally conscious educators also wanted to reduce the huge amount of paper students use to print files from their laptops.
It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
From its introduction in 2007, the Kindle has drawn criticism from the National Federation of the Blind and other activist groups. While the Kindle's text-to-speech feature could read a book aloud, its menu functions required sight to operate. "If you could get a sighted person to fire up the device and start reading the book to you, that's fine," says Chris Danielsen, a spokesman for the federation. "But other than that, there was really no way to use it."
In May 2009, Amazon announced the pilot program, under which it would provide Kindle DX readers to a few universities. It wasn't a huge deal; Princeton's plan, for example, involved three courses and a total of 51 students, and only in the fall semester of that year. University spokeswoman Emily Aronson says the program was voluntary and students could opt out of using the Kindle. "There were no students with a visual impairment who had registered for the three classes," says Aronson.
Nevertheless, in June 2009, the federation filed a complaint with the Justice Department, accusing the schools of violating the ADA. Perez and his team went to work.
"We acted swiftly to respond to complaints we received about the use of the Amazon Kindle," Perez recently told a House committee. "We must remain vigilant to ensure that as new devices are introduced, people with disabilities are not left behind."
The Civil Rights Division informed the schools they were under investigation. In subsequent talks, the Justice Department demanded the universities stop distributing the Kindle; if blind students couldn't use the device, then nobody could. The Federation made the same demand in a separate lawsuit against Arizona State.
It's an approach that bothers some civil rights experts. "As a blind person, I would never want to be associated with any movement that punished sighted students, particularly for nothing they had ever done," says Russell Redenbaugh, a California investor who lost his sight in a childhood accident and later served for 15 years on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "It's a gross injustice to disadvantage one group, and it's bad policy that breeds resentment, not compassion."
Some officials at the schools were puzzled. Given the speed of technological development and the reality of competition among technology companies -- Apple products were already fully text-to-speech capable -- wasn't this a problem the market would solve?
That's not Perez's way. To him, keeping the Kindle out of sighted students' hands underscored "the importance of full and equal educational opportunities for everyone."
In early 2010, after most of the courses were over, the Justice Department reached agreement with the schools, and the federation settled with Arizona State. The schools denied violating the ADA but agreed that until the Kindle was fully accessible, nobody would use it.
One obvious solution to the problem, of course, was to fix the Kindle. Early on, Amazon told federation officials it would apply text-to-speech technology to the Kindle's menu and function keys. And sure enough, last week the company announced a new generation of Kindles that are fully accessible to the blind. While the Justice Department was making demands, and Perez was making speeches, the market was working.
But as Amazon was unveiling the new Kindle last week, Perez was sending a letter to educators warning them they must use technology "in a manner that is permissible under federal law."
Now, Perez is at work on a far bigger project, one that could eventually declare the Internet a "public accommodation" under the ADA. That could result in a raft of new Justice Department regulations for disabled access to all sorts of Web sites.
Of course, most Web access problems are already being solved by the market, but that won't stop the Justice Department's zealous civil rights enforcer.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on ExaminerPolitics.com.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Why-did-feds-claim-Kindle-violates-civil-rights_-1006723-99801389.html#ixzz0xWVkTvUk
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___
It seemed like a promising idea until the universities got a letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, now under an aggressive new chief, Thomas Perez, telling them they were under investigation for possible violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Perez is the same rotten scumbag pofs who shut down the Black Panther case.
-
Come on you far left goons. no comment on this?
-
Come on you far left goons. no comment on this?
hahaha. If you were a Libtard, you'd be running as far from this as possible. This is just fucking nuts.
-
Bump. So obama has time to go after colleges for crap like this, vacations, parties, etc, but not deal with the economy.
-
Bump.
-
Bump for bezerk
-
Bump. So obama has time to go after colleges for crap like this, vacations, parties, etc, but not deal with the economy.
i heard obama once had the multitasking ability to deal with TARP, and at the same time, engage in a presidential debate.
I think the other guy had a mental breakdown and tried to cancel the debate, actually.
-
i heard obama once had the multitasking ability to deal with TARP, and at the same time, engage in a presidential debate.
I think the other guy had a mental breakdown and tried to cancel the debate, actually.
Off yourself.
-
200 million a day :D :D :D
April 14, 2011 12:21 pm ET by Matt Gertz
If you are wondering if there was any lie about the Obama Justice Department so absurd that even New Black Panthers fabulist J. Christian Adams wouldn't push it, today is the day to eat some crow.
In an op-ed in The Washington Examiner, the rightwing activist cites as an example of "bizarre cases have come out of the Holder Civil Rights Division" that "DOJ stopped the debut of the Amazon Kindle because it was not in Braille." Problem 1 with this claim: the Kindle debuted in 2007, during the Bush administration. Problem 2: DOJ didn't block the Kindle's debut.
Adams seems to have a lot of trouble getting the facts right on this; back in August 2010, he offered the similarly false claim that Amazon "tried to sell a talking Kindle reader, but Justice said it couldn't because the button to make the Kindle talk didn't have Braille."
Here's what actually happened: In June 2009, the National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind filed suit against Arizona State University on behalf of a bind student after the university announced plans to participate in a pilot program to use the Kindle DX in the classroom. ASU was one of several universities to participate in this program. According to NFB, the program was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because:
The Kindle DX features text-to-speech technology that can read textbooks aloud to blind students. The menus of the device are not accessible to the blind, however, making it impossible for a blind user to purchase books from Amazon's Kindle store, select a book to read, activate the text-to-speech feature, and use the advanced reading functions available on the Kindle DX.
The advocacy groups also filed complaints with DOJ, which began an investigation of the use of Kindle in classrooms. The impact of these efforts was swift and positive for the blind. Under pressure, Amazon began improving the Kindle to be more accessible to the blind. In January 2010, the groups -- joined by DOJ -- settled with ASU, citing "making improvements to and progress in the accessibility of e-book readers" and the university's agreement that they would "strive to use devices that are accessible to the blind.
That same month, DOJ also reached settlements with three other schools that had been participating in the Kindle pilot program. A DOJ press release stated:
Under the agreements reached today, the universities generally will not purchase, recommend or promote use of the Kindle DX, or any other dedicated electronic book reader, unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision. The universities agree that if they use dedicated electronic book readers, they will ensure that students with vision disabilities are able to access and acquire the same materials and information, engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with substantially equivalent ease of use. The agreements that the Justice Department reached with these universities extend beyond the Kindle DX to any dedicated electronic reading device.
Notably, the settlements took effect "at the end of the pilot projects."
In June 2010, DOJ issued a letter to college and university presidents warning that requiring the use of digital readers which were inaccessible to the blind would be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A month later, Amazon was praised by NFB after it unveiled a new version of the Kindle with "a voice guide that reads all menu options aloud so blind and other print-disabled people can navigate the device menus."
So to sum up: DOJ did not "stop the debut" of the Kindle. It put pressure on universities and on Amazon on behalf of blind Americans, thus providing an impetus to get Amazon to produce a product that was accessible for the blind.
But when the facts don't line up with Adams' quest to target the Obama DOJ, he changes the facts.
Tags: Washington Examiner, J. Christian Adams
-
Thank you for confirming my story.
-
more of your bullshit
Obama Justice Department uses ADA to harm the disabled, risk lives, and undermine health and safety
heres the truth
It put pressure on universities and on Amazon on behalf of blind Americans, thus providing an impetus to get Amazon to produce a product that was accessible for the blind.
-
Again, thank you for confirming my story.
-
more of your bullshit
Obama Justice Department uses ADA to harm the disabled, risk lives, and undermine health and safety
heres the truth
It put pressure on universities and on Amazon on behalf of blind Americans, thus providing an impetus to get Amazon to produce a product that was accessible for the blind.
you bachmann it up a little :D :D :D :D
-
What is the title to this thread?
-
and what is the next line
-
and what is the next line
That is the name of the article from the examiner you putz
-
you know damn well what you were trying to insinuate, you are the bachmann of getbig
-
you know damn well what you were trying to insinuate, you are the bachmann of getbig
Next potus? Cool! 33 for prez bitches!
-
Next potus? Cool! 33 for prez bitches!
you would fit right in with bachmann and palin
-
you would fit right in with bachmann and palin
I would do threesome for sure w them.
-
not saying i wouldn't,but i would have to tape their mouths shut ;D
-
not saying i wouldn't,but i would have to tape their mouths shut ;D
When did you convert back? Did bachmanns pray therapy work on you?
-
When did you convert back? Did bachmanns pray therapy work on you?
:D pray the gay away
-
DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind
By Elizabeth Harrington
August 31, 2012
Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts
(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Justice Department says it has reached a settlement with the Sacramento (California) Public Library over a trial program the library was conducting that let patrons borrow Barnes and Noble NOOK e-book readers.
DOJ and the National Federation of the Blind objected to the program on grounds that blind people could not use the NOOK e-readers for technological reasons.
The Justice Department said the settlement is aimed at stopping discrimination: “Emerging technologies like e-readers are changing the way we interact with the world around us and we need to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the programs where these devices are used,” said Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez in a news release.
A DOJ official told CNSNews.com it interviewed a woman who could not participate in the library's e-reader program due to her disability and concluded that the program had violated the ADA.
Amy Calhoun, an Electronic Resources Librarian at the Sacramento Public Library who helped launch the ebook reader project, said she was unaware of any objections from a blind person regarding the program. “I have not heard of a specific complaint directly from a patron,” she told CNSNews.com. “But I do know that patrons who are part of the statewide Braille and talking-book program do get in touch with us for audio books.”
The Sacramento Public Library Authority, which operates 28 libraries, partnered with the book store chain to provide at least one NOOK e-book reader to each of its libraries, pre-loaded with roughly 20 books in all genres.
The library describes the program as a “pilot project,” and it requires patrons to fill out a feedback survey as the program works through its initial stages.
But the Justice Department says a state or local government program that excludes people with disabilities violates the ADA, regardless of whether it is a “pilot” program.
As part of the settlement agreement, the Justice Department directed the library system to purchase at least 18 e-readers that are accessible to the blind, something that comes in the midst of budget cuts that have forced Sacramento libraries to implement one employee furlough day each month for two years.
The library says it will add iPod touch and iPad devices, which read e-books aloud with a computerized voice.
Adding the Apple devices could cost the library anywhere from $3,582 with the purchase of 18 of the most inexpensive iPod Touch models, to $14,922 if they wish to provide the high-end version of the iPad, which cost $829 a piece.
According to an article posted on NFB's website, while e-books "are an especially exciting development" for blind readers, Nook's "bookstore, desktop software, mobile software, and dedicated hardware reading devices are all inaccessible to blind users."
The settlement agreement also directs the library not to buy any additional e-readers that exclude blind or disabled people; and it requires the library system to train its staff on the requirements of the ADA, the DOJ said.
“We are pleased that the Sacramento Public Library Authority worked so cooperatively to adopt measures that will allow patrons with disabilities to avail themselves equally of the library’s programs and services,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California, Benjamin B. Wagner.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-targeted-public-library-lending-e-books-inaccessible-blind
-
Fucking brilliant, the Library tries to do something nice, and the DOJ has nothing better to do than fuck with them.
-
Thomas Perez Should Be Blocked
American Spectator ^ | March 12, 2013 | Quin Hillyer
Posted on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:01:33 PM by jazusamo
Panther-case scofflaw merits no cabinet post.
If President Obama thinks he can get away with appointing an obvious prevaricator to be Secretary of Labor – and a radical, race-baiting one at that – he has lost all touch with reality. Even a group as confused and fractious as the caucus of Senate Republicans is sure to find the collective backbone to block the (expected) appointment of Thomas Perez.
As I described in detail last August, Perez is one of the most loathsome figures in the thoroughly loathsome political ranks of Obama’s Justice Department.
He has led the administration’s racial scaremongering against voter ID laws, but got smacked down hard by the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit, so that elections in South Carolina this week will go ahead with the law in effect. (This wasn’t a partisan decision: The unanimous three-judge panel included Clinton appointee Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.)
Indeed, Perez doesn’t even seem to be a very good lawyer at all: His positions also have been rebuked by courts in Arkansas (about the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act), again in the D.C. District Court, in New York on an education case (U.S. v. Brennan), in a Florida abortion case where Perez’ team was abusively prosecuting peaceful protesters, and most particularly in a major Perez loss in Florida when trying to force the state not to remove non-citizens from its voter rolls.
Perez has overseen most of the unprecedentedly naked politicization of DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, as detailed in an exhaustive series of reports at PJ Media. In short, of 113 “career” (meaning supposedly apolitical) civil-service hires for the Civil Rights Division under Obama and (mostly) Perez, every one of those 113 were demonstrably liberal activists. (The New York Times effectively confirmed this report:..
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
-
I thought this story had to be a joke when i first read it, so I looked into it a little more. Nope - its more vile, disgusting, abhorent, and scum bag crap from Obama
________________________ __________________
Home > ADA > Departments of Justice and Education Warn College and University Use of Kindle and Other E-Readers May Violate ADA
Posted on June 30, 2010 by Todd Sorensen
http://www.northwesteducationlaw.com/2010/06/articles/ada/departments-of-justice-and-education-warn-college-and-university-use-of-kindle-and-other-ereaders-may-violate-ada/
Departments of Justice and Education Warn College and University Use of Kindle and Other E-Readers May Violate ADA
On June 29, 2010, the Department of Justice and Department of Education issued a joint warning letter regarding the use of “dedicated electronic readers” in colleges and universities. The term “dedicated electronic readers” encompasses a number of new handheld devices which allow students to download and read books, such as Amazon’s Kindle, Sony’s Reader Daily Edition, and Barnes & Nobles’ Nook.
The DOJ and DOE’s concern with electronic readers is that most are not accessible to students who are blind or have limited vision because they lack “an accessible text-to-speech function.” As a result, according to the DOJ and DOE, use of such devices may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”):
Requiring use of an emerging technology in a classroom environment when the technology is inaccessible to an entire population of individuals with disabilities – individuals with visual disabilities – is discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) unless those individuals are provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally integrated manner.
The ADA requires that places of public accommodation—which under 28 C.F.R. 36.104(10) expressly includes private educational institutions—must provide full and equal access to disabled individuals as detailed in 28 C.F.R. 36.201-204.
The warning from the DOJ and DOE comes on the heels of the DOJ’s January 2010 settlement with Case Western Reserve University, Pace University, and Reed College, resolving the DOJ’s claims against those institutions arising out of their use of Amazon’s Kindle DX. Under the terms of that settlement, the institutions agreed not to “purchase, recommend or promote” the use of electronic book readers “unless the devices are fully accessible to students who are blind and have low vision.”
Tags: ADA, Accommodation, Americans with Disabilities Act, Department of Education, department of justice, doj, electronic reader, kindle
There you go again, trying to warp, twist, and skew a very straightforward statement.
It doesn't say that college & University students are prohibited from using these devices... simply that REQUIRING THE USE OF these devices may be discriminatory and a violation of the ADA.
That's probably why Ron doesn't say that in order to post on this board, one has to be capable of comprehending what they're copy & pasting. To make that a requirement would be discriminatory to you and a few others, and would therefore be a violation of ADA. ;)