You might as well ask the same of the guy who prints the track listing or lyrics for some albums.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Deaf woman sues promoter for not providing signer for (entire) concert
- Thread starter Geoff
- Start date
You might as well ask the same of the guy who prints the track listing or lyrics for some albums.
*LYric Sheet for some screamo Metal* "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!"
Hmm, kind of different isn't it? Has anyone with a disability of any kind asked someone to print out lyrics of a song?
Would the same apply to a restaurant where none of the staff know sign language? Would that restaurant also be response for having braille menus for blind people?
Only in that one is written and the other is signed. Both are the transmission of a "forbidden" word at the request of an artist. So not really different in any meaningful way.
That doesn't really make sense in many ways.
Most importantly: communication could still take place, the deaf customer could read the menu or write things, while the blind customer could engage in conversation. There is no need for sign language or braille there.
Is it absolutely necessary that everything should be accessible to everyone? I mean, concerts are 90% driven by the sound and music of it. It must absolutely suck to be deaf. But I dunno, shouldn't they just accept the fact that concerts just isn't a thing than can fully enjoy? Instead of demanding somewhat weird measures for them to at least get what the artists are singing?
I'm aware that this is probably a shitty situation all around. But sometimes things go to such extremes to make sure that literally everyone is included or accepted while it isn't always necessary.
I'm aware that this is probably a shitty situation all around. But sometimes things go to such extremes to make sure that literally everyone is included or accepted while it isn't always necessary.
The UK updated it's equality act in 2010 and included disability for both public and private spaces and to make reasonable accomodations. Similar to how much the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 required rapie change to parking lots and public spaces meaning automatic opening doors, handicap spaces at the front, sidewalks with down slopes and/or ramps.
If someone with vision loss/blindness wanted to, they could probably request braille printouts if it was a reasonable request for the private space. Again it really depends.
Primarily will probably be employment based but as the example in OP shows, maybe will lead to things like sign language interpreters at concerts, braille printouts etc.
Yes those are options, and in those instances its the customer mostly putting in the effort, not the restaurant. So I'm saying why is it really this promoter's responsibility to provide an interpreter?
How is the customer mostly putting in the effort? Reading the menu is a normal part of restaurant culture. If there are further questions, the waiters will put in the effort by writing things down. For the blind example, the waiters would read the menu out loud, again putting in the extra effort.
The food will be enjoyed regardless of disability, because the employees will do their part to make ordering possible. THAT is their responsibility, not providing sign language or braille. It's about making the product, food, available to all customers.
Do you think the waiters would say "Well, should have brought someone to figure it out for you"? If no, then why do you think a deaf person should provide the interpreter?
Just because you have a disability doesn't mean you get to be an asshole, it seems like they did their best to accommodate her requests and she sued them anyway.
The woman requested an accommodation the venue was legally obligated to provide and the venue only provided the legally obligated accommodation after the woman threatened to sue. Even after stating they would comply with their legal obligation. the venue continued to fall short of their legal obligation by failing to provide the accommodation for the opening act.
How is the woman an asshole?
We really need to ask this?
Ofcourse it's okay. We need interpreters to translate a message. Not give their take on what's cool and not.
Depends on how you define commonplace. Probably happens a lot, because there are actually loads of deaf people, and loads of concerts.
But I'm not sure it's actually "common" as in "no matter what concert, you'll find a few deaf people". For huge concerts though... I could see it. But that's an assumption, couldn't find any real numbers
So....are white people allowed to sign the n-word for interpretation purposes?
The same deaf person at a restaurant could make the case that they shouldn't have to write anything down. The restaurant should have an interpreter. The blind person could say that you're not making the experience pleasant by having to ask you to read everything off the menu instead of them just reading it themselves. I agree that the promoter wasn't able to reasonably accommodate this person's needs, but I think at that point a refund of the purchase should be expected. I think the lawsuit is a bit much.
I'm sure some will make a case that only black signers should be at hip-hop shows, but it's not as if there is an overabundance of sign language workers. It's a very specialised role and industry, and it's not as if it's something everyone wants to do.
I cannot give you a definite answer on what you're asking me, but welcome to the complexities of life where if you hold strict absolutist positions occasionally things can come along in life that might at least ask you to question and talk about your beliefs. Not many people will ever think about sign language for the n-word until they are brought into the realities that it is going to need to happen at some music events where sign language is provided.
As I said earlier the signer is a conduit for the artist, they aren't using their autonomy to speak their mind. Adults should at least be able to accept that before constructing their own arguments around your question.
That's not remotely the same. "I shouldn't have to write" VS "I shouldn't have to hire outside workers"? What is this comparison? Are you completely ignoring that the law is calling for reasonable adjustments?
Hiring extra people to enable additional methods of ordering is nonsense if ordering can happen without those. That's not the same as hiring an interpreter for a concert, as there are no proper alternatives.
And I also feel the lawsuit is a bit much, because while it wasn't enough, an attempt was made.
Obviously, that's subjective. I'd say if you answer the question "Are white people allowed to type out lyrics containing the n-word if hired by the artist to do so" with yes, then this should also not be a problem.
I'll go a step further, and I don't mean this in a literal or dehumanizing way, but when regarding offensiveness, in my opinion, interpreters should be treated like machines. They simply repeat what is given to them. Race is simply not a factor, as they do not have any say in what is happening.
Of course, that's simply my opinion, as someone who doesn't sign, rap, use the n-word or be in any position to do so.
It is, but one which I'll personally walk around lightly as I know the can of worms it'll probably open up. As I added at the end of the post you quoted, the only thing I'd hope is adults can understand the person employed and being paid to do sign language is just the conduit.
I'm understanding of anyone making an argument that every show that is going to have the n-word has to be signed by a black person, but then you will have the counter-point about such a specialist industry and a supply and demand factor. Not many people know sign language. So would deaf people be hypothetically denied their request at a hip-hop/rap show if a black person was unable to work at the event?
http://www.visionaware.org/info/eve.../cultural-activities/theater-film-and-tv/1235
Your comparison is nonsensical btw. Braille? For movies?
The ADA already requires interpretive services for blind patrons of theaters in certain circuits.
No problem with this if scaled appropriately. At lower levels the headliner is getting paid on a guarantee (maybe), but the opening acts aren't getting paid much at all. Sometimes just gas money, or just food and a place to stay even. Hiring a sign language interpreter might make those events impossible to pull off.
Nobody booking shows for indie bands is making much, if any money off of it at all.
Nobody booking shows for indie bands is making much, if any money off of it at all.
I'd suspect any court ruling would have a stipulation along the lines of "In venues capable of holding more than 1000 people" to avoid hitting venues like small pubs and clubs.
If Little Mix is a kiddies pop group, then wow.
Yeah, as weird as t may sound, it's probably illegal not to have a signer.
Yeah, as weird as t may sound, it's probably illegal not to have a signer.
We live in a pretty modern world with an abundance of wealth(even though we still fail way too many of our fellow humans in many ways). Enabling people with disabilities to enjoy mass media is not a crazy dream anymore.
But what about the opening act? I personally have no idea how much preparation time is necessary for something like this, so I'm wondering if having the signers also perform the opening acts is feasible.
I guess there might be an argument around who is paying for the opening acts? The signer will require more money for working for longer. Do the support acts have to incur that cost or the main act? Sometimes support acts are legitimately unheard of/small acts. It's something that can be sorted out, I'm just addressing what may be "business politics" in the scene.
'Deaf' doesn't necessarily mean 100% unable to hear. Concerts, with their loud music and ability to feel the bass, are one of the few spaces where a deaf person can experience a lot of the sensations we take for granted.
A bit heavy handed by the woman but if she gets results for the disabled going forward I'm ok with it.
If someone request for one then yes as they are bound by the Equality Act 2010 act.
Yes as again they are bound by the Equality Act 2010, it doesn't matter how big or small the event is the act clearly states that they have to make provision for people who are disabled.
Yes as the organiser did not meet her requirement which was to provide a signer.
Yes to send a message to the organiser and others.
She paid money to for the concert and ended up missing out on the first two act due to the organiser failing to provide a signer.
But surely you'll agree that this is not reasonable for a gig with, let's say, 50 people attending?
No I don't, the Equality Act 2010 is quite clear and does not allow exemption for a gig hosting 50 people. If someone requested for a signer then the onus is on the organiser to either meet that requirement.
The only reason why someone would refuse to do it is purely because they don't want to pay for a signer.
Agreed, life is already difficult for us disabled folks.
Yep, Most small gigs poorly pay the bands and bands relay on merch sales. Having the venues/ band pay for a signer will kill the music scene in this country, except for the biggest bands and venues.
Also there probably isn't enough trained interpreters to sign every gig so will cost a lot in that perspective as well.
If can be hundreds of £ to hire someone in this industry to do hours of work. If you sell 50 tickets at £5~10 a pop, then that is a big expense. We're not talking discriminating here for the sake of discriminating, but economics at some of the small venues/gigs. Someone has to pay a fair bit of money for the services of someone who will do sign language.
With an audience that small the chances of someone deaf attending will be incredibly small, but if we're talking law here, then, even complete outlying situations have to be discussed and potentials spoken of.
The singer who was at my old University who did lectures for students stated they made a decent whack per hour because it's such a specialised role. Disability allowance covers that, which is usually Government funded or partially funded for the Universities.
When we are talking small pubs/clubs and venues, it would probably be private expense. Or in the case of huge pop and rap artists, they and/or their touring management may need to cover it. Or the venue cover it and bill them. Which is fine when that sort of money is involved, but harder to pinpoit who is paying for it when the margins are very low.
Well, yes. Should we expect for the organizer to pay for an interpreter if the cost exceeds the estimated profits? There has to be some kind of limit for small performances. A 40 minute set by an unknown band may not attract enough people to pay for a professional signer, who has to translate the lyrics, memorize them, and perform them. I'm talking about events where the individual band members make less than 100 bucks for their performance, the absolute lower end of the spectrum.
But I don't know a lot about this, is there any way to get funding for this kind of thing in these situations?
The last time Nine Inch Nails played at Lollapalooza there was a signer off to the side of the stage the entire time. I thought it was interesting and I assume that right in front of that area was reserved for people that need it.
Here is an article that mentions it:
https://music.avclub.com/whats-the-deal-with-the-onstage-sign-language-interpret-1798241659
Here is an article that mentions it:
https://music.avclub.com/whats-the-deal-with-the-onstage-sign-language-interpret-1798241659
More than most bands could afford. If this became a req it would kill small to mid sized bands and venues.