[kml_flashembed movie="" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

I cannot fathom this. It is so absurd! Unbelievable! I am peeved!

Picture 12

Netflix did it AGAIN! GAWD!! This is OUTRAGEOUS!

They did something really bad…. read on…

Do you remember our beloved PBS show called Through Deaf Eyes that was shown in 2007?


THROUGH DEAF EYES is a two-hour HDTV documentary that explores 200 years of Deaf life in America. The film includes interviews with prominent members of the Deaf community, including actress Marlee Matlin and Gallaudet University president emeritus I. King Jordan.


Netflix has this documentary film on their website as an online streaming option, which people can watch it online anytime without renting a DVD. See below…


Of course, as usual…. it is NOT CAPTIONED!

Through Deaf Eyes is the most cherished documentary and lots of years of blood, sweat and tears from Deaf Community been poured into this film, including a long standing history behind making this film.

Jean Lindquist Bergey
“Life and Deaf”: Language and the Myth of “Balance” in Public History
Sign Language Studies – Volume 8, Number 4, Summer 2008, pp. 330-347

Abstract: This article chronicles the protest to draft plans for an exhibition on Deaf history organized by Gallaudet University. Jean Bergey, director of the History through Deaf Eyes project, analyzes documents from letters of concern and offers context on the politics of public presentation of Deaf community history.

Here’s the link to this journal article here.

I cannot imagine that Netflix would post this documentary as an online streaming option which Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals are unable to watch because there is no captions available!

This has to STOP! They cannot do this to us! Not this kind of DOCUMENTARY!

That’s a NO-NO!wagging_finger

If Netflix gets away from this, therefore it may be too late to not have online streaming videos accessible for all of us.



From NAD Blog:
Advocates need to continue to request captioning on Netflix Watch Instantly movies by sending messages to Netflix by Twitter via the Netflix twitter account at or @netflix and or @netflixhelps, via the Netflix Facebook page at, by posting comments on the Netflix blog at, and contacting:
Catherine Fisher
Director, Communications
Netflix, Inc.
Netflix Customer Service


Amy Cohen Efron

Did you like this? Share it!


[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Amy Cohen Efron, Amy Cohen Efron. Amy Cohen Efron said: @marleematlin #captionaction @netflix Enough is Enough! […]

I am really angry about this, their attitude is UNACCEPTABLE!

This isn’t the first time they have been blowing us off – how long has it been going on? At least two years?


There was an ad on TV yesterday for Netflix’s streaming. I was boiling mad. I’ve boycotted Netflix for several years already. I explained to my son, who is hearing, why I was mad. He said he understood. It IS annoying. I’d say that EVERY DEAF person leave Netflix! I did years ago. Now it’s your turn!

I canceled my subscription two weeks ago, and I still cannot believe Netflix would swoop that low to use the most cherished documentary about Deaf people available for online streaming. It is a major insult!

OH man!

It was tweeted 9 minutes ago by Netflix to Marlee Matlin…

Netflix wrote:

@MarleeMatlin Closed Captioning is in our development plan for 2010. Please see our blog post on the plan:

9 minutes ago from web in reply to MarleeMatlin

This link goes to OLD blog posted on June 12, 2009 and how insulting is that? It is a BRUSH OFF!

I don’t care if they are working on the technology in a few months. It is the principle!

Don’t do the streaming of “Through Deaf Eyes” if you are not providing captions RIGHT NOW! It is WRONG!

Netflix, take down this documentary, OR turn off the sounds!

Stop dragging your feet with us!

Amy Cohen Efron

I think NAD should take the Netflix to the local court. If not successful, take them to court of appeal, if failed, go to the Supreme Court.

Have NAD to bring the scenarios such as ADA laws to the court.

So, Netflix apparently neglected the ADA laws.

HI White Ghost,

There is nothing in our ADA laws allow online captions. That’s why there is a huge push of HR 3101 to make this happen. ADA is so behind with today’s technology. Netflix is not legally required to provide captions, and they are willing to work on it… as they said two years ago… twiddling my thumbs…

Take down Through Deaf Eyes or make all online movies with sounds removed!

Wow….HR 3101 is such complicated source that I could not understand.

How about the 3-D movie along with the captions on TV? Whew. I think it’s gonna be hard to visualize the whole picture. I also think it’s going to be a tough task.

Must be interesting, though.

Twiddling our thumbs isn’t going to solve the problem, girl. 😉

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by abcohende: @DeafnessGuide check my blog please



The only way to really solve this problem is to go to legislative level. This means writing or e-mailing your state Representatives right now because HR 3101 is the internet captioning access bill that ADA doesn’t cover and will be on the House floor soon. The passage of HR 3101 will force every internet source to provide captioning of video content on the internet. That includes Netflix. I urge all you readers to do so.


Go ahead with the full-scale public campaign to put the Netflix in the hall of shame and make it pay dearly for snubbing the deaf and HOH community.

White Ghost was absolutely right why we don’t have any legal teeth with the online video streamings, etc.

White Ghost,

I did write the blog entry pretty long time ago about what we should do about the 3-D film at theatre if we, deaf people could not possibly enjoy the 3-D films.

Y had good question about the big Q’s about the captioning of 3-D television programs and movies.

The 3-D TV will come real sooner than we anticipate.



Why we waste our time with the Netflix?

I unsubscribe the service pretty long time ago.


I think we are using our time wisely on this. It is important to practice our rights and equal as we are part of this society. It seemed to be a uphill battle, but I know we can do it. Cnet, Hulu, Youtube, Google, and some other websites already have some captions, so why not the Netflix. The more we fight for caption on website, the more access we get in information for our knowledge, learning, and even entertainment. After we get Netflix put more than few movies captioned, then I would love to see for us to go after CNN, ESPN, other news that have videos on their websites. HR 3101 is a good start, but do not rest on the rocking chair.


Wow!! you showed me a circle of words ” Streaming” I could not believe!
I mailed you and it will be arriving your house tomorrow or Thursday. I read this your blog. I finally understood better. Netflix know better how many deaf community lives on Earth. The Deaf baby booms are now over a millions since 1940’s.

You have lot of empowered about A.D.A to against Netflix!


I am overdue to respond this, but there’s another way to get them to address this is to buy one share of their stock so you have a right to attend all stockholders’ meetings and you can voice, too! It costs $59.44 to buy one share.

Something disturbed me about this very hostile reaction towards Netflix. I wasn’t certain what it was, then I tried playing your YouTube video and discovered what it was. You are upset about the accessibility for deaf or hard of hearing videos, and yet your video discriminates against the blind. You do not have an electronic voice converting text to speech for those with vision impairments – and thus are doing something no better than Netflix.

Honestly, I think it is in Netflix’s best interest to include captioning. I watch frequently at night with the volume all the way down due to sudden loud bursts – often leaving over half the videos unintelligible. Captions would help even me, someone with bad but not limited hearing.

I also think many sites could do more to encourage accessibility. However, realize there is consequences to legislation – namely, the cost of accessibility to sites (blind, deaf, those with limited mobility, those with epilepsy, and so on) will mean many companies will choose to not enter the market at all.

Do you really think 100% coverage of all people with some need outside the norm should be legally required? After all, accounting for 100% of all possible contingencies is impossible and thus all companies would have to have big bankrolls to cover potential lawsuits. In other words, would you be willing to accept this legislation if suddenly it cost you $100/month to access Netflix Watch Instantly, and $100/month to access online, and $100/month to access, and $1000/month to access Hulu, and so forth.

It is not a solution for you, but what do I do when I can’t really hear the TV due to it being late at night? I watch subtitled foreign movies… or I watch “eye candy” action films where knowing the dialog really adds little.

I’m sorry that you feel left out of Netflix. Perhaps you should instead target film industry first. Netflix redistributes their products, and they are the ones not subtitling all films. Which raises the question, do you expect movie theaters to have closed captioning available to you? How about a music CD, do you expect that all CDs and CD players have a visual display of the sheet music and lyrics when you can’t hear it? Do you advocate all silent films be re-edited to include sound tracks for the blind?

Oh, and my wife has a sever peanut allergy (ie, potentially lethal) – do you support a nationwide ban on all peanut products or products manufactured in a plant that processes peanuts so she can go safely anywhere? (Including a Texas Roadhouse or other restaurant that does the whole “free peanuts” thing?)

How far do we go to legislate accommodating outside 2 standard deviations of our potential market? Cars for quadriplegic? Odor stickers on meat for those who have lost their sense of taste and smell? Smart flooring to reduce foot injuries to diabetics? All wheat product manufacturers required to make and market non-wheat products wherever their regular products are so as not to inconvenience those with gluten allergies? No shrimp in restaurants to ensure no cross-contamination for those with allergies?

So, does it upset you that Netflix does not comply with full web accessibility standards for all potential contingencies – or they are not accommodating your specific group and the rest be damned (because they are not your group, or they are “too small” of a group)?

PS – You have convinced me of one thing, I should not watch this documentary because I am not deaf and it is “special and exclusively” for deaf people. This is what you want, right, for people outside your world never to see this documentary… right?

Leave Comment

10 + 15 =