Hello all:

Jamie Berke has a wonderful posting out on About.com (http://deafness.about.com/b/2009/01/18/is-rear-window-captioning-a-failure.htm) discussing whether or not RWC (Rear Window Captioning) is a failure.  As I've stated before, the one time I used it was somewhat inconvenient (trying to find the right angle, etc.), but overall, I was fine with it, PERSONALLY.  I've also stated that I prefer Open Captions, but have seen people who do prefer RWC.  Another blogger somewhere blogged about his preference for RWC, and yet another brought up the rhetorical question of "Do people who prefer RWC do so only because that is the only option they have where they are?"  Interesting question, and I would have to say, more than likely, that is true.  I have a hard time seeing how people, presented with both options, would prefer RWC over OC.  It is an interesting piece.  Short on details, but it also has a poll with it for people to cast their vote for RWC or OC.  As of a few minutes ago, the numbers were running strongly in favor of OC, with 31 votes total cast.  Here are the current results:

Which do you prefer - open captioned films or rear window captioning?
Rear Window Captioning  (2)	6%
Open Captioned Films  (29)	93%
Total Votes: 31

A commenter on this post of Jamie's slightly insinuated that I did not have my "finger on the pulse" of the deaf community regarding this issue.  I took exception, and want to make sure people understand that I AM SIMPLY FIGHTING FOR MORE CAPTIONED MOVIES IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY AT MORE THEATERS.  I would prefer Open Captions, and hope that is the end result, and will fight for that end result.  At issue is the wording of the draft of the language for this bill, in which the words "closed captioning" is used exclusively.  As I've explained in other posts, replies to commenters on my blog, and so forth, that was done without consulting fully with me before the bill was pre-filed.  It is in committee now, in both the state House and state Senate, and I fully intend to push for the language to be changed to reflect simply "captions" or "captioning" to allow for some ambiguity.  When (if) the bill passes (with the corrected language), it will then be up to the Kentucky Human Rights Commission, in conjunction with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, to set the parameters for the type(s) of technology to be used, the minimum number of showings of captioned movies, and so forth.  It is at this juncture that we can push for Open Captions, and believe me, I will lead the way on that by fighting for Open Captions to be the preferred methodology. 

However, I feel it important to note, that the main reason for not specifying OPEN CAPTIONS only in the legislation, is to allow for the ambiguity that perhaps personal captioning devices that may come along can be later determined to be the more equitable alternative for both the theaters and the consumers.  If we limit it exclusively to Open Captions in the legislation, this perhaps will be viewed or interpreted narrowly in the future once (if) better or more portable devices come onto the market.  If it is interpreted narrowly in the context of OPEN CAPTIONS only, then the possibility exists that, in order to make full use of better devices in the future, we would have to go back before the legislative body of this state to effect another change in language.  Leaving it somewhat open ended now with just the words "captioning" or "captions" would be better in the long run.

I also want to address a specific portion of the commenter's response to me (you can see the whole dialogue at Jamie's blog link above) in which he suggested:

"If I were you, I would have someone to distrupt the sound systems at movie theatres to send the direct message to the movie theatres and audists that how would they feel being deprieved of sounds."
 
Let me be clear right now.  I DO NOT AND WILL NOT ADVOCATE ACTIONS SUCH AS THIS.  Quite honestly, my personal feeling is that taking actions such as the above are not only childishly disruptive and can result in the perpretator being evicted and barred from that theater if caught, but are also bordering on vandalism if they physically alter or breach the theaters' sound systems.  Again, I do not and will not condone such actions, so please, do not attempt this if you read that person's comment.  It is counter-productive and serves no good purpose. 

And so it goes...I do hope to hear feedback from any of you in support of either RWC or Open Captions.  It is an interesting perspective from both sides.

Eddie