4 ms·

You seem angry and you are constructing a false dichotomy. No one is arguing that content should not be released, just that content, produced in institutions wh

You seem angry and you are constructing a false dichotomy. No one is arguing that content should not be released, just that content, produced in institutions which are recipients of federal grants, should be made available to the widest possible audience. What is the standard by which we define 'widest possible audience'? Reasonable accommodation. Your argument reduces to a statement that it is better for Harvard and MIT to offer this content without making an accommodation for certain individuals (of class D), because: a/it is unreasonable for them to do so b/certain individuals (of class A) benefit It's an interesting argument, but one you've introduced no facts in support of.

wyager 12y ago
>No one is arguing that content should not be released, just that content, produced in institutions which are recipients of federal grants, should be made available to the widest possible audience. Take a step back and look at the potential side effects of what the plaintiff is asking. If a university, with all their money already earmarked, is told that if they want to keep distributing free educational materials then they must pay to transcribe them, what are they going to do? A very likely outcome is that they're going to scrap their free educational materials program. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to see this. Also, how do you define "widest possible audience"? Should the universities be legally compelled to translate all videos into Chinese as well? There are a lot more Chinese speakers than deaf people.