South Korean Supreme Court Rules Movie Theaters Must Provide Accessibility Aids for Disabled Audiences
2 sources · South Korea · 1 of them is linked to a state
Who reported this
- Yonhap
- The Korea Herald
What the colours mean
- Left
- Centre-left
- Centre
- Centre-right
- Right
- A hatched block means the outlet is affiliated with, or controlled by, a state.
Political lean describes where an outlet sits within the politics of its own country. It is never a position on a single global scale.
Political lean is comparable inside one country and not across them, which is why the bar groups by country first. Publicly funded broadcasters are not marked as state-linked.
The owner of each outlet is listed as a matter of record, not as a judgement about the outlet.
Every source for this story reports from South Korea.
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that movie theaters' failure to provide audio descriptions and subtitles for people with visual and hearing impairments constitutes disability discrimination. The ruling overturns a previous decision by the Seoul High Court, which had limited the requirement for accessibility services to theaters with 300 or more seats and restricted the frequency of such screenings to 3 percent of total screenings.
The Supreme Court stated that the lower court placed excessive weight on the financial burden of theater operators. It found that the lack of audio descriptions, subtitles, and receiving devices violates the Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities and Remedy Against Infringement of Their Rights. The top court has ordered the appellate court to reconsider the case to find ways to abolish discrimination without causing excessive confusion for people without disabilities.
The lawsuit was filed in February 2016 by four plaintiffs with visual and hearing impairments against the country's largest multiplex operators, including CJ CGV, Lotte Cultureworks, and Megabox JoongAng. The plaintiffs argued that people with disabilities have an equal right to enjoy cultural content. While the plaintiffs won the first instance ruling in 2017, the second instance ruling had partially favored the theaters by citing financial constraints.
How each side framed it
- Centre
- The report focused on the legal reversal and the specific failure of the lower court to balance financial burdens against disability rights.
- Centre-right
- The report emphasized the plaintiffs' right to equal access to cultural content and the need to avoid confusion for non disabled moviegoers.
Sources
100% of the statements in this article were traced back to the source articles listed above.