Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The California Channel Flunk Big Time!

The live television coverage of the California State Senate hearing on the "AB 2072" bill surely flunked in big time without providing any open captions for deaf non-signers and deaf television viewers at home and across the nation. The presence of ASL interpreter do not help very much when the television camera turned to the senator(s) spoke before the audience. Huh?

The California Channel is operated and funded by the private cable television industry. Please check out the following link for more info -

That is definitely the violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other civil rights laws, especially California's own equality laws.

NAD and California Association of the Deaf and other organizations of the deaf ought to file the legal lawsuit against the California Channel and the California State Legislature for their failures of providing the equal accessibility to the deaf television viewers, especially deaf non-signers.

Guess what? Mike McConnell of the Kooknut Pundit, Gina Sutton aka Candy, the White Ghost (Karl White?), Barry Sewer of the Hooliganism and Russell the Deaf Larry Flynt never gave any damn about our rights to the equal accessibility and accommodation. Doesn't they?

ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)


  1. No wonder they want AB2072 - they never wanted to protect the rights of the deaf and their actions today said very loudly in that regard!

  2. And is it true?? The bill passed. Oh boy. I predict the Riverside and Fremont campuses to SHRINK and possibly CLOSE because of this bill. I think the CA leaders did not protest loudly enough. They did not get their message across.

  3. The bill only "passed in committee", not "passed in the whole senate". There's a big difference. The bill still has a long way to go before becoming law, and it was amended today in ways that follow some of the recommendations of the CDNAIS coalition.

    As for captioning on the California Channel, that might not be a simple issue as to what is legally required. The California legislature might not be required to caption videos or show sign language interpreters on the screen, due to the legal of "sovereign immunity." The issue might not have come before the court yet, so it might be up in the air. More legal research is required.

  4. I meant: the legal issue of "sovereign immunity".

  5. You may be correct, BR, that it is only the first step in the process in the legislation...however, it has gotten IN. Now the bill is in dangerous may be harder to get it out.

  6. Cam,

    That could be true for much difficulty to deal with the whole assembly than just nine health committee members.

    Tony Mendoza will have eggs all over his face when the assembly vote down his shitty bill.


  7. RLM, they will not vote it down but the good news is that this bill has been modified and perhaps in the days to come, it might be modified even more so both sides will be happy with the language before it comes to a final vote. As I understand it, there are three items of modifications generated yesterday and will need to be sent to the Assembly for approval. Still much work to be done. It seems that California legislators are getting an education.

    Your tone/insults everywhere you post does NOT help this process.