me the statutory language is very clear that people on with communication barriers with people who have sensory disabilities should have access and the auxiliary provision interpreter not whether it is a matter of fact changes the sluice if you will this is the end the question i think at least by some rises at least in part from the extent to which the truth the interpreter can inject a certain amount of exactly that interpretation  be in fact interpreted it can be right yes there is some judgment used in doing but the dialogue and the description that is a is the content of the movie and some of the content story do i also understand that the interpreter also to the audience reaction to the individual in addition to the content service offered by senate mark is the screening of a movie that includes visual and aural content as well as the reactions of the people in the audience to the extent that they do react  would significantly increase me not be effective in terms of you know if there is action that's going on that's quick and things that are happening in the movie he's not going to get that same experience of what's happening the court need look no further than the plain language of the eighty eight total to provide that discrimination by public accommodation includes the failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that individual with a disability is not excluded tonight communication for the individual depending on their disability in the situation so on so there's no blanket requirement that any one particular auxiliary in your service provided in the situation out of hand a little deference to  language of the statute is so clear and this was the regulation that there's probably no need for the court to think about deference to the department of justice use and i just want to go back for a second to the rest of my point about the plain language of the statute so the errors and we discussed those in our brief and i just want to highlight a few of the ones that you most important the courts relied heavily on this idea of access versus content that is a false dichotomy the whole too strongly because as i said a moment ago i think the exact words that were either service that might be required depends on the circumstances and it might well be that some other auxilary interservice could be provided by an art gallery that would be effective or a concert hall to effectively communicate the content of the guard were the music this is a position subject to that gallery or concert halls defenses depending on the size and other circumstances it might be to have an undue burden defense that would apply but yesterday and zillion services requirement does apply there's no exemption in the statute or the regulations for particular public accommodations like galleries and concert halls and we have a long history going back decades that's provided to make it possible for persons with disabilities to participate in the activities every day activities that public accommodations authority as whirls other area i see my time is up but there are other mistakes that lead the district court to the conclusion  all members of the audience we could not secure the captions when attending the movie it hearkens because the plaintiffs in that case were dealing with a movie theater company that did not purchase quick meant that would display the captions the harkins point is did not ask for individualized interpretations of the movie they seek to acquire hearkens to create the captions or to hire circuits have reconciled this is by focusing on the access versus content distinction that we prefer and those multiple circuit courts have recognized that it is the obligation of the place of public accommodation to provide i can see that to you jay has promulgated a rule making that states that in your opinion it will be required perspectively and because of the idea of j were making cinemark and other members of provide free has voluntarily provided that in advance of the prospective or becoming final i also believe though your honor that that's an important point because we're talking about captioning we're talking about something that at least to me is it's a literal is that is that took on intellectual policy considerations that went far beyond that big out into the basis of the regulation the ability of regulated litigants to rely on what the department of justice has said in one of the examples in the seventh circuit opinion it is specifically that under the law as it exists now the same law that exists right now that we're talking about today and individual there in a tough situation and i recognize this because i guess to be fair to your question i don't believe they consume the movie studios because in the students aren't places of public accommodation it's a very unusual situation where you have the content provider on address the fundamental all ration defense in this case would if eat even if we were to country to your position on what constitutes a conclude that that put notice ambiguous i believe there are two different issues i believe the issue we've been talking about largely to day is whether or not the district court got a ride with respect to the definition of i think that it's possible that the our gallery will be able to provide the same information using a different box every eight it is not that the art gallery does not have to provide it's a question of the art content services provide it and so here cinema provides a service to the public that includes the visual content of the movie the public would not come and sit in the theater and not be able to access federal and visual but it's important that people with disabilities though the whole notion behind the end is that people with disabilities are integrated into the social and economic mainstream of society and then to being able to access the same