Man sues pornhub for lack of closed captioning

Quickdraw101

Quickdraw101

Beware My Power-Green Lantern's Light
www.google.com

Deaf man sues Pornhub over lack of closed captions

A deaf man is suing Pornhub.
www.google.com www.google.com

www.google.com

Pornhub sued by deaf man over adult video site's alleged lack of subtitles: report

A deaf man has reportedly filed a lawsuit against a popular adult video website for alleged rights violations because he says it doesn't provide closed captioning on its videos.
www.google.com www.google.com

"Yaroslav Suris is suing Pornhub, which hosts millions of adult videos, claiming the site's lack of subtitles violates the rights of deaf and hearing impaired under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)."

"The ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in areas of "employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications and access to state and local government programs and services," according to the U.S. Department of Labor."

"Suris argues that the deaf and hearing impaired can't understand the audio portions of the videos on the site, thus denying them similar access to the content, according to TMZ."

This is honestly the strangest fucking headline I've seen in a few weeks. Like, I'm wondering how the fucking lawyers who have to take this case feel.
 
The books are better anyways. :p

Apparently the dude's a serial suer on the same grounds. Porn sites are just his latest target. I don't know if anyone appreciates someone who shoots so wildly, though, and this load is just going to get into the court's hair and make a mess of things more than anything else.

Guy needs to take a deep breath and just think about baseball or something.
 
Even though I know this is some dude suing just to take advantage of being deaf I can help but wonder how badly an ai trying to decipher porn sounds would do and why anyone would want to bother.

Just as an example, this is what youtube's bot does when it has to deal with an Australian:

Now imagine it trying to handle porn. Yeah. It'd be funny but hilariously useless.
 
Nobody should be obligated to accommodate people with disabilities. It’s nice to do what you can, like installing ramps and things like that, but creating the obligation to do so is not only a gigantic violation of people’s rights but if taken to its logical conclusion leads to all sorts of insane ruinous policies.

To even call it “discrimination” when you have a product that someone can’t use is absurd. Discrimination is when you don’t allow someone to do something that they are able to do because of your bias against them. What’s next, Harrison Bergeron? It’s discrimination based on ability to hire more qualified candidates?

Then again, people should have th right to discriminate too, but that is a tangent.
 
While I am not against anti-discrimination laws for employment and housing, I do not believe they should ever include public accommodation, which is the component which is ruinously broad and forces people to act contrary to their own interests and beliefs. This should cover all forms of discrimination laws, with the only exceptions being for common carriers because of their special legal status, and obviously government agencies.
 
As strange as this may sound, I'm on the side of the deaf guy.

I watch a lot of JAV's, and I do want to know how they interview girls before they start moaning and doing the "naka ni dashite" thing.

(Plus, it would give subtitlers some form of legitimacy and living.)
 
I want to see if I understand this law. All commercial products have to be usable to all kinds of disabled people, otherwise they are considered discriminatory? Like, if I sell binoculars then I am violating the law because a blind man can't use them? I'm sure this law is not applicable in this way (otherwise we're living in a comedy world), but it sure sounds like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top