In the 2009 General Assembly, Kentucky has not just one but two bills that would require all movie theaters with five screens or more to install closed captioning technology for deaf or hard of hearing people.
Sounds like a nice thing to do. Surely it is good business if there are enough people nearby who need the service. But do we really need a law and a team of bureaucrats picking out equipment and making private business owners buy it?
This raises an important point about how we are managing the current budget deficit situation. Instead of cutting budgets straight across the board, shouldn't we take this opportunity for a little prioritization?
Uniform cuts make little sense when it means equally fewer resources for rooting out mad case disease as it does for harassing movie theater owners.
Friday, December 19, 2008
How many legislators does it take ... ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Au contraire, there is clearly a prioritization going on in the budget cuts. Whenever a government agency is faced with significant cuts, they always choose to cut those programs that are the most visible to the public. Hence all the gnashing of teeth in the press about the parks that will have to be closed, the libraries closing and public swimming pools, bus schedule changes, etc. That way they can inflict some high profile "budget pain" on the taxpayer who will, they hope, reconsider such draconian cuts, and ultimately demand that their representative raise taxes. I think it seldom works but it is always a major consideration when deciding where to cut.
I understand your viewpoints completely on thinking that this bill is not required. However, I will say that it is, unfortunately. I have attempted to work with a movie theater owner and explain to them that Kentucky has 647,000 people who are either deaf or hard of hearing, and explained to him that many would not go to the movies due to lack of access. The gentleman would NOT respond to my letters, would not return phone calls, etc. In speaking with the State Senator that prefiled the bill first (Ray Jones), I explained the circumstances and the numbers, he agreed with me and pre-filed the bill. If nothing else comes of it other than that forces them to finally sit at the table and listen, then it has served it's role.
I have no problem putting my real name on here, which I will do. I also am more than happy to explain this in more detail to anyone who wants to ask.
Eddie Runyon
In addition, I forgot to add this to the last post I made. Bills filed in both the House and the Senate at the same time can help move it along quicker, which is why two bills have been filed (Ray Jones and Leslie Combs) that are identical in wording.
Eddie
As I drive into every shopping mall looking for a space to park and drive by empty handicap spaces that are never used I see the real need for closed caption at movies.......really... don't they (law makers) have more important things to accomplish.
Sorry Eddie, this bill is not required. Movie theaters are private businesses and their goal is to make a profit, not serve the public.
I'd guess 75% or more of those 647,000 are over age 60 and not at all interested in today's Hollywood offerings. So forcing unprofitable mandates on private business will only force smaller theaters out of business.
If you think it is such a good idea, offer to split the costs of installing one screen with the closed captioning equipment in exchange for the profit of the increased business to that screen.
Or open your own theater and since there's no competition, you should be able to draw from all over the state.
Don't see a purpose for this. I think most of those theaters have at least one CC screen anyway. I know two of the larger ones in Lexington do.
Then we will agree to disagree..The bill IS required, in my opinion. While it is true that businesses are in the business to make a profit, I disagree with your assertion "not to serve the public". They are places of public accomodation, no different than say, courthouses or shopping centers, etc. Your guess is close as to the portion of people over 60 as a percentage of the deaf and hard of hearing population, but not quite. Some recent studies have shown that somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 in 5 babies born today have some degree of hearing impairment, so it is a growing trend. Additionally, recent studies put out by the movie industry itself shows an uptick (small, but there) in people over the age of 45 attending more movies. So the potential is there for an influx of business from a formerly largely ignored or underestimated audience. As for a "team of bureaucrats picking the machines", nothing could be further from the truth. Read the bill, it calls for the Commission on Human Rights, in conjunction with the Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to research and set the standards. Two absolutely qualified commissions, not bureaucrats.
One last thing in response to your post, are you aware that 5 major movie studios have joined to secure financing of over $1 billion dollars in loans to movie theaters to install 3D technology in their theaters? This technology will cost in the neighborhood of $100,000 PER SCREEN to install (so $1 million for a 10 screen cineplex, for example), yet they are reluctant to even discuss installing technology that will cost, on average, $7,000 per screen to install. Doesn't it make more business sense that a return on investment of $7k would be FAR easier to recoup and turn into a profit enhancer than a potentially $1 million investment? As I said before, I DID make the effort to speak to my local theater owner, he made NO effort to engage in a discussion with me. Attempting fundraising to help install the technology is something I would have been happy to do.
Also, I'd like to address the poster from 12/20 at 9:58 a.m. Those are the ONLY two screens in Lexington, and if you have been reading the editorial pages recently in the Herald-Leader, several citizens have written about where they almost never are working like they are supposed to, or the movies aren't adevertised as being captioned. How can people go, if they do not know if the movie is captioned or not, or why go, if the theater won't take the time to ensure the equipment is up and running?
The largest portion of the deaf and hard of hearing populations in this state reside in the more rural areas, where there are no captioned screens available. If I want to see a captioned first run movie, I would have to drive from Pikeville to Lexington (and hope the screen is working), a round trip of 5 1/2 to 6 hours.
So, to correct you, most theaters do NOT have this option. It is very rare in the state and across the nation, in general. There are pockets where it is offered on a consistent basis, but they are few and far in between (Chicago, Washington DC, etc.).
As for the 12/20 7:12 a.m. poster:
Sure, they have more important things to do...Let's see now, have you even looked at some of the other pre-filed bills? This bill, in comparison, is a good bill and the right thing to do.
Sorry for the lengthy reply.
Eddie
For anyone interested at all in learning a little more about issues pertaining to the deaf, please feel free to visit my blog here. I hope this blog owner doesn't mind me posting this. If it is not something you want on here, feel free to delete this post. I'm simply offering it for those who may want to read my take on some deaf issues here in Kentucky.
http://thumpaflash.livejournal.com/
Eddie
I will still disagree that being "open to the public" does not mean sell a product that is agreeable to everyone in the public. Hard of hearing people are not discriminated at movie theaters, there is just no product for sale there for them.
Dairy Queen does not offer a peanut allergen free product, so 2 of my nieces cannot eat anything there. They just claim all products may have come in contact with peanuts.
So they choose to eat at other restaurants.
There is a market for peanut free products. But if it is not cost effective for Dairy Queen to market to that segment of the public, then they should be free to not serve that target market.
And I will actually agree with you somewhat on that..But they have an alternative to eat somewhere else. Not all movies that come out on DVD have captioning or subtitles, contrary to popular misconception. So you tell me, what would be the alternative in that situation?
I honestly, honestly agree that government does not have a role in EVERYTHING to do with businesses, but when it is simply the right thing to do, then it should be done. Additionally, as I have said, the businesses can't argue it is not cost effective IF THEY AREN'T EVEN WILLING TO COME TO THE TABLE AND DISCUSS THOSE NUMBERS, OR HEAR THE OTHER SIDES NUMBERS and then make a determination.
i think any rational person would rather spend $7k and make it back quicker, than spend $1 million and take forever paying it off. As most people know, the profit margin in a theater is the concession stand anyway. More traffic equals better opportunity for more profit margin. Simple economics.
Eddie
"They are places of public accomodation, no different than say, courthouses or shopping centers, etc."
This is where you ran off the tracks with your logic. Private businesses are NOT places of public accomodation. They are whatever the owner wants them to be, no more and no less. If I want to operate a movie house that caters to the local hispanic community, should I be forced to include english subtitles? The market, and only the market, should decided such matters. It sounds terribly un-PC in our current culture, but if you are incapable for whatever reason of hearing or understanding the sounds made by my movie, thats your tough luck. I have no duty to you. Period.
Solarity:
When they offer a service TO THE PUBLIC, they are places of public accomodation. Should they decide to be a private club, they are more than welcome to file the appropriate papers. In the meantime, they ARE places of public accomodation because they offer a product to the public in general.
I don't want anyone's pity, nor do I care to seek your approval. Yeah, it is my tough luck I can't hear, but if you, for example, operate a business that sells goods, you have a duty to try and make that as accesible as possible to all people unless you specifically intend to cater to private clientele. My logic is sound, your understanding of what constitutes public accomodation is not.
In the meantime, "No Habla Espanol"
Merry Christmas to you, too.
Eddie
Post a Comment