[42] in Software Accessibility Project email archive
Fwd: NFB, Industry File Lawsuits On Video Description
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kathleen Cahill)
Thu Apr 12 11:42:32 2001
Message-Id: <200104121542.LAA12202@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:43:31 -0400
To: sw-access@MIT.EDU, web-access@MIT.EDU, barbarar@MIT.EDU, donaghey@MIT.EDU,
rich@MIT.EDU
From: Kathleen Cahill <kcahill@MIT.EDU>
Cc: atic@MIT.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A strange turn of events!
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:03:55 -0500
>Reply-To: "* EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information"
> <EASI@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Sender: "* EASI: Equal Access to Software & Information"
> <EASI@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>From: Kelly Pierce <kelly@RIPCO.COM>
>Subject: NFB, Industry File Lawsuits On Video Description
>To: EASI@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>
>The National Federation of the Blind along with several large industry
>associations filed lawsuits last week challenging a new order by the
>Federal Communications Commission that requires the biggest TV and cable
>networks to describe about four hours a week of video programming. The
>suits were filed last week in Washington, DC at the 11th circuit court of
>appeals. The NFB called the rules "arbitrary and capricious." All of the
>lawsuits seek to have the court throw out the rules and find that the
>commission exceeded its authority by mandating audio description. The
>actions by the NFB are significant. It represents one of the few times a
>disability organization has entered the federal courts to stop
>implementation of policy or regulation that would increase accessibility
>for people with disabilities. it is also significant that a disability
>organization has joined with industry to block an expansion of disability
>access.
>
>The full text of the lawsuits filed with the court follow. the lawsuits
>were filed in paper form. Electronic copies were not
>available from the court. Any typographical errors are likely a result of
>scanning and not that of the filers. The documents are quite brief. I am
>told that this provides those filing the lawsuits with the maximum
>flexibility in making any number of arguments later.
>
>Kelly
>
>
>
>Text of NFB complaint.
>
>UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
>
>NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, Petitioner
>
>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent
>
>Case No.: 01-1155
>
>Filed: 4/2/01
>
>PETITION FOR REVIEW
>
>The National Federation of the Blind hereby petitions the Court for review
>of the Order of the Federal Communications Commission in Implementation of
>Video Description of Video Programming, MM Docket No 99-339, Memorandum
>Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 01-7, adopted on January 18,
>2001.
> In this proceeding, the Commission adopted and revised rules
>requiring the largest broadcasters and multichannel video programming
>distributors to provide video description of television programming in
>specified amounts. The new rules codified at 47 C.F.R. 79.2, 79.3, are
>arbitrary and capricious and otherwise not in accordance with law.
>
>This Petition for Review is filed pursuant to Section 402(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 402(a). This Court has
>jurisdiction over these matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342(1) & 2344. Venue
lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2343.
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>
>Daniel F. Goldstein Joshua N. Auerbach Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
>
>300 Maryland Center 520
>West Fayette Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201
>
>Attorneys for Petitioner
>
>CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
>
>I hereby certify that on this 27th day of March, 2001, copies of the
foregoing
Petition for Review were sent by certified mail, postage prepaid,
>return receipt requested, to:
>
>Hon. Jane E. Mago Interim General Counsel Federal Communications Commission
>445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20554
>
>Joshua N. Auerbach
>
>Text of Second papers
>
>UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
>
>MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS,
and NATIONAL CABLE TELEVISION ASSOCIATION, Petitioners,
>
>v.
>
>FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Respondent.
>
>Case No. 01-1149
>
>PETITION FOR REVIEW
>
>The Motion Picture Association of America, the National Association of
Broadcasters, and the National Cable Television Association ("Petitioners"),
>hereby petition this Court for review of the final order of the Federal
Communications Commission in Implementation of Video Description of Video
>Programming, MM Docket No 99-339, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
Reconsideration, FCC 01-7 (adopted Jan. 18, 2001) ("MO&O"). The final order
>in this proceeding was published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2001.
66 Fed. Reg 8521 (Feb. 1 2001). In this rulemaking proceeding the
>Commission adopted and revised rules requiring broadcasters and multichannel
>video programming distributors, i.e., cable and satellite television
operators
("MVPDs"), to provide "video descriptions" of television programming. The new
rules are codified at Sections 79.2 and 79.3 of the
>Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. 79.2, 79.3. A true and correct copy of the
MO&O is annexed hereto.
>
>Jurisdiction and Venue
>
>This Petition for Review is filed pursuant to Section 402(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 47 U.S.C 402(a). This Court has
>jurisdiction over the matters in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342(1)
>& 2344. Venue lies in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2343.
>
>Nature of the Claims
>
>As aggrieved parties who participated in the rulemaking proceedings below in
>MM Docket No 99-339, and associations whose members will be adversely
affected
by implementation of the rules adopted therein, each of the Petitioners is
properly a party in the instant review proceeding before the
>Court. Relief is sought on grounds that the Commission's order adopting the
>video description rules, and the rules themselves, are inconsistent with the
>Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C 151 et seq., and are
otherwise not in accordance with the law. The rules also impose a scheme of
>compelled speech on Petitioners' members, and are inconsistent with the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Petitioners ask that
>this Court hold unlawful, set aside, enjoin, annul, and vacate the
Commission's video description rules and the orders adopting them.
>
>Respectfully submitted,
>
>By: Robert Corn-Revere Ronald G London
>
>HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P 555 13th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 (202)
637-5600
>
>Counsel for Petitioners Motion Picture Association of America, National
Association of Broadcasters and National Cable Television Association
>
>Dated: March 28, 2001
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Kathy Cahill
MIT Adaptive Technology (ATIC) lab
77 Mass. Ave. 11-103
Cambridge MA 02139
(617) 253-5111
kcahill@mit.edu
