• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOJ Goes After E-Reader Pilot Program

F

Fishstyx

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
766
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That gives me an idea for saving taxpayer money, starting as soon as we can replace Holder.
 
This is simply an instance when a group dedicated to protecting certain individuals got mad because that library didn't anticipate the problem in the first place. This group is saying that you need to think of us every time a program like this gets developed. Since it was a public library they probably should have. I just want to know why it went to the DOJ instead of the State of California.
 
Why doesn't the Department of JustUs go after libraries that provide audio books, which are not accessible to deaf people?
 
Douglas_Smith said:
Since it was a public library they probably should have. I just want to know why it went to the DOJ instead of the State of California.
Click to expand...

So every aspect of a public institution needs to accommodate everyone at all times? So I wonder, should they have to hire a special librarian to describe the pictures in photography books? What about coloring books for the kids, probably should get rid of those. As mentioned, get rid of the audio books because of the deaf?

I'm sure this library had various books for the visually impaired. Down the road, if the plan is successful, sure, add the more expensive blind friendly models.
 
You apparently didn't read the article. It was a cost issue. The Ipod Touch and Ipads are much more expensive than the Nook model they were looking at.
 
Fishstyx said:
So every aspect of a public institution needs to accommodate everyone at all times? So I wonder, should they have to hire a special librarian to describe the pictures in photography books? What about coloring books for the kids, probably should get rid of those. As mentioned, get rid of the audio books because of the deaf?

I'm sure this library had various books for the visually impaired. Down the road, if the plan is successful, sure, add the more expensive blind friendly models.
Click to expand...

Public institutions are responsible TO all the public. Should the group for the blind make such an issue over a pilot program, I don't know. It seems this may just another instance of people causing problems just to be heard. Why else would it go to Holder's office instead of to the states attorney's office in California?
 
Fishstyx said:
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard of the Federal Government doing in a long time. So the library, which is already facing budgetary issues has to buy the more expensive Apple products.

So either horrible priorities management or the DOJ has become grossly overstaffed if they have time to do stuff like this.

DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind | cnsnews.com
Click to expand...

Our country is trillions in debt and the DOJ is wasting money on this.I can think of something that should be cut from the federal budget.Obviously they must not think there is any crime going on to waste public money on this. I don't think there is a blind person on the planet who gives a rats ass about E-Readers. They might care if they made a E-reader where the braille can pop up.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous. My cheap old Kindle reads books aloud. Doesn't the Nook?

The whole thing is moronic. California is suddenly so rich they lend e-readers?

It just takes one activist handicapped person to cause endless problems. The DOJ is obligated to investigate a properly filed complaint.

Good grief©
 
Douglas_Smith said:
Public institutions are responsible TO all the public. Should the group for the blind make such an issue over a pilot program, I don't know. It seems this may just another instance of people causing problems just to be heard. Why else would it go to Holder's office instead of to the states attorney's office in California?
Click to expand...

And if you go back to the OP, this demonstrates that either the DOJ's priority management is a total cluster **** or its entirely way over staffed. Probably both.
 
Too bad they didn't have the option to just cancel the program. Given the cost, and continuing budget concerns that will be here for a long time, that would be the better option.

I'm always suspicious of the motivations of people who complain straight to the government without even talking to the entity they supposedly have a problem with.
 
Fishstyx said:
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard of the Federal Government doing in a long time. So the library, which is already facing budgetary issues has to buy the more expensive Apple products.

So either horrible priorities management or the DOJ has become grossly overstaffed if they have time to do stuff like this.

DOJ Targeted Public Library for Lending E-Books 'Inaccessible' to the Blind | cnsnews.com
Click to expand...

Actually, I can understand the issues here.

Public services are required by the Americans With Disabilities Act to make their services available to all people with disabilities. I have some family members who are blind, and I think it's unfortunate that mp3 players, especially ipods, aren't as friendly to blind as they could be. Neither is iTunes, especially since the blind could download audio news and entertainment.

I hope we do more to make the data revolution going on more accessible to the blind.
 
samsmart said:
Actually, I can understand the issues here.

Public services are required by the Americans With Disabilities Act to make their services available to all people with disabilities. I have some family members who are blind, and I think it's unfortunate that mp3 players, especially ipods, aren't as friendly to blind as they could be. Neither is iTunes, especially since the blind could download audio news and entertainment.

I hope we do more to make the data revolution going on more accessible to the blind.
Click to expand...

I agree about helping the blind but I think the real issue here is why is the DOJ involved in something that could have been handled at the state level?
 
Douglas_Smith said:
I agree about helping the blind but I think the real issue here is why is the DOJ involved in something that could have been handled at the state level?
Click to expand...

Because the ADA is a federal law, and the DOJ enforces federal laws.
 
samsmart said:
Because the ADA is a federal law, and the DOJ enforces federal laws.
Click to expand...

True, but DOJ seems pretty selective on what federal laws they choose to enforce. :mrgreen:
Personally, this should have been handled at the State or local level.
 
mike2810 said:
True, but DOJ seems pretty selective on what federal laws they choose to enforce. :mrgreen:
Personally, this should have been handled at the State or local level.
Click to expand...

All executive agencies and departments are selective on what federal laws they choose to enforce. That's part of the U.S.' system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom