U.S. supports movie captioning in Arizona
Not unlike the old Western movies where the cavalry shows up at the last minute to save the day, the U..S. Department of Justice made a last-second appearance in the Arizona movie-captioning case, and urged that the truly awful trial court decison be reversed on appeal.
The decision in question, mentioned before on this blog, held that captions change the nature of a movie, and are therefore not required under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That decision effectively made ADA useless with respect to hearing loss by declaring that movie theaters -- and by extension, all other public facilities -- do not need to convert spoken information into a text (or sign-language) format, the only way to make that information accessible to people with more than mild hearing losses.
That case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- the first movie-captioning case to reach the appeals-court level. Because that case will effectively decide what ADA requires in the way of movie captioning, a number of organizations, including Wash-CAP, filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Arizona Attorney General's office, which brought the case, urging that the decision be reversed.
Last Friday, the United States Department of Justice asked for permission to file its own friend-of-the-court brief. That brief also urges reversal. The DOJ argues that while there was some indication that Congress did not intend the ADA to require open-captioned movies using the technology available in 1990, when ADA was passed, the statute does not address closed-captioning, which might be required. Moreover, DOJ was rather deliberately vague about whether ADA might require open captioning under today's technology, where captions aren't burned into the film's print, but are shown from a separate projector.
DOJ's involvement is highly significant, for two reasons. First, the federal government carefully selects those cases in which it gets involved, and does so sparingly. As a result, the briefs -- always carefully researched and well-reasoned -- are highly influential. More important, the Justice Department is specifically charged with issuing regulations to implement ADA, so its views with regard to a statute that it administers are particularly weighty.
(I don't know who deserves the credit for persuading DOJ to get involved. I spent some time lobbying a mid-level DOJ official at the Hearing Loss Association conference in Reno last June, but I don't pretend that our prompting was sufficient or decisive.)
I had always been reasonably optimistic that the Arizona decision would be reversed, but now, with the involvement of DOJ, I think that reversal is about as close to a certainty as one can get with an appeals court.
