Autistic boy ejected from cinema
p2pnet.net OT News:- Anthony Pratti is seven and he lives in Wallkill, New York.
He’s autistic and has cerebral palsy. But that doesn’t mean Anthony can’t enjoy himself and one of the things he likes to do is go to the movies.
So last Sunday Anthony, his parents, his sister and his grandmother headed over to the local Loews Cineplex theaters in the Galleria at Crystal Run to watch the 1:15 pm matinee of March of the Penguins.
Anthony uses a wheelchair so he and his family sat in the special wheelchair section to watch the show and he was having a great time, his mother, Gina Pratti, told Dave Richardson on the Times Herald-Record.
You could tell because he was laughing then, “About 15 minutes into the film, one of the theater’s managers approached the family, she said,” Richardson’s story goes on.
“He said our son was laughing too loud,” Pratti said. “My husband told him Anthony didn’t understand, that he was disabled, but that we’d try to quiet him down.”
But, “Not good enough, apparently,” according to the Herald-Record. “The manager brusquely told the family that Anthony had to leave, Pratti said.
“Outraged, the family followed the manager to the lobby, where they were told they all didn’t have to leave – just Anthony. nthny’s mother was dumbfounded asking – “What are we supposed to do, wheel him outside and leave him there?”
Richardson adds that Pratti and her husband have spent the past three days making phone calls and sending e-mails, trying to get someone – anyone – from Loews to respond with an explanation but, “Not one person from Loews has called me back,” says Anthony’s mother
==================
Go here for an update to this story …
(Thanks, William)
If there’s something you think we should know, contact us – tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
Times Herald-Record – Oppose European Snoop Law, August 18, 2005
August 18th, 2005 at 9:47 pm
As a father of a disabled son this is the sort of thing that happens everywhere in society. it’s sickening and heartbreaking and those who have little tolerance for the disabled I will never have understanding or tollerance for reguardless of the reasons. This theatre manager obviously has absolutly no knowledge of disabilities to make a stupid statement like the one saying only the boy had to leave not the family. If you want to really anger the family of a disabled individual this is how you do it.
it’s one of my biggest pet peeves.
Rick
August 18th, 2005 at 10:17 pm
what the hell is this doing on this website? this is like posting something about a mother who had to take a child out of a video store for bawling cuz he couldn’t see American Ninja. This is rediculous, and there’s already one reply which is all…THAT TERRIBLE MANAGER!
Here’s the real reason no one is contacting this lady back…loews doesn’t care. 1 manager, at 1 location, kicking out 1 boy (disabled or not) for being too loud is not major news. it happens. albeit it is sad that they boy cannot control himself, it is also sad that the manager has to deal with being portrayed horribly for doing his job.
you read me, his job. His job is to ensure an excellent quality experience for the majority of his guests. Who’s happiness should a capitalistic company favor? a number of guests who probably complained, or wanted to but fealt bad, or a family of 5 (give or take). I’d go for the number of guests.
I’d say the only two big issues here, is that the manager is poorly trained, and probably fealt very awkward that he had to do it. When people feel awkward or don’t know the right way to approach a subject they usually come out sounding like retarded assholes…case and point. the other big issue here, is that if you have some way to make another party feel bad and get your way, you will. If this was an issue about a mother and an infant baby, there would be no news story. Mother would get kicked out with screaming baby, and no one would care. however, put the infant into a bigger body, call him disabled instead of an infant, and well, now he’s a bigot and he’s persecuting.
How to wrap this up in a nice little bow: the manger should invite the family to a private showing, or offer them a free showing during a matinee, where attendance will be lower. The family excepts, but ALSO! apologizes to the media for jumping all over that poor manager, as they have to realize he was probably put in the middle of the situation because of another guest. And if anyone here has ever been in management, its the worse place to be. That guy is gonna have all sorts of names branded to him, and also going to have to go “Sensitivity Training” or some other corporate hoopla just because of this one silly incident. If you have 10 guests complaining about 1 disabled person, and 3 (or however many) family members complaining about staying, business dictates to go with the 10. its alot easier to refund 4 tickets than it is to refund 10.
All in all, their both twats, and they both need to work on dealing with complex situations as these.
and flame away, i can already see the posts calling me insensitive or this name or that name. but i don’t care. i see logic.
August 18th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
“this is like posting something about a mother who had to take a child out of a video store for bawling cuz he couldn’t see American Ninja.”
Not even close. I won’t call you insensitive (or even the manager), just ignorant of what the situation and disabilities are all about. I see no logic since the family obviously has been to many movies before and this is the first time it’s happened. In our society (and it’s worse in others as well) we have this attitude that everyone must conform to a social norm and are intollerant of anyone who doesn’t reguardless of the reasons. many excuses are given to sooth our guilt and conciousness toward those who are unable to control certin physical and emotional issues due to a disability. Things like “I’m just doing my job”, “we’re looking out for the welfare of all our students, not just one”, and other stupid remarks to justify discriminating against the disabled make me sick. The only answer to this narrow minded thinking is to isolate the disable from the rest of us which is totally unacceptable. If you don’t want to be in a theatre, store, class etc with a disabled individual than you and others who feel that what are the ones who should be isolated. These people have the same brains, goals, feelings and many times, intellegence and common sense as the rest of us. imagine how you’d feel if you were ostricized.
Finally this is relevent to the site. Second, it’s Jons site and he can put on what he wants. If you don’t like it, don’t read it or set up your own site for the non disabled public only. Enough of my ranting now.
Rick
August 18th, 2005 at 10:38 pm
“what the hell is this doing on this website?”
***********************************************
READ THE MISSION STATEMENT, BUDDY:
“the ultimate goal has always been to help launch a non-profit, collaborative and censor-free international news service through which on- and offline community print and electronic media outlets can access and exchange news which hasn’t been spun, filtered and pre-digested by vested corporate interests.”
(nobody reads anymore.)
************************************************
the family should fight fire with fire: “SUE ‘EM ALL!!”
August 18th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
“for being too loud is not major news”
……sure seems to be now.
August 18th, 2005 at 11:02 pm
Well said, Rick ! Thank You …
August 18th, 2005 at 11:06 pm
“what the hell is this doing on this website?”
OT means off topic. There’s a lot of stuff on this site that you won’t find anywhere else. Jon has said plenty of times before something to the effect that if he thinks it’s interesting, and he thinks that we’ll find it interesting even though it’s off topic, he’ll post.
It’s one of the things that makes p2pnet stand out.
Morg
August 18th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
i hate trolls. HAHAHAHAHAHA! sorry, was that too loud for you?
August 19th, 2005 at 12:16 am
Thats truley sad. I would understand if it were a couple of people talking loud that didn’t have disablities. But a young child with disabilities. Come on. I say screw that manager. Of course the theater won’t respond. They probably don’t feel like they are obligated. The way I see it most of society have lost their moral values and bow to the dollar bill no matter what. If I were to have a child with disablities and this happened I wouldn’t be makeing those phone calls to the theater but to my lawyer b/c in my opinion that is dicrimination against people with disabilities. I mean where I live there are only 2 showings on weekdays and 3 on the weekends and most of all the showings have lots of people when would have my child with disablities have gone in that situation? People like that shouldn’t be in management for a public place like that.
August 19th, 2005 at 12:56 am
I beg to differ. If he’s making noise, his behavior and right to watch the movie is infringing on the experience of those around him. They didn’t discriminate because he’s autistic, they discriminated based on the noise he was making (as I presume they would with anyone else).
I am not saying the situation was handled well but I find it a bit heavy handed to go to a lawyer because your kid was ejected from a movie theater; disabled or not.
Gina
August 19th, 2005 at 1:21 am
wrong. it is discriminating if not conciously. when you live it every day you know. doing ones job is an excuse to fall back on.
I’m willing to bet it started with some patron unable to cope with their own uneasiness about having to be in the same room with a disabled child in a wheelchair. there are people, good people, who actually get physically sick and throw up when they are faced with that. to me these people are the disabled.
I’ve seen distractions in theatres far worse than laughing too loud and those people were not removed. for me hearing others laugh heightens the movie going experience.
accomidations for the disabled is whats necessary and that means more then putting in wheel chair ramps. Like I said earlier the only alternitive is seperating the disabled from the general public and that’s unacceptable. perhaps we should seperate those who have problems with the disabled (I feel sorry for them but not in my neighborhood attitude) until they get some sensitivity training or better yet have them volenteer with the local mental health department or any number of private groups devoted to helping the developmentally disabled.
I say sue the theatre chain, not the manager. not for punishment, but for public awareness.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:32 am
My name is Rasha Kawar and I’m 10 years old and I use a wheelchair and I also has cerebral palsy. My mom told me about Anthony’s story and we read the article together and I feel mad and sad so much because this is not fair and it hurt a lot and I want everybody to treat me and other children who have special needs like everybody else because we are like everybody else.
And its OK if we are different because this is how God created us and there is a lot of people and children with special needs or old people who are different or slow and you don’t know how smart or nice or kind or good they are even if they are different. And you may be old and slow and have special needs yourself one day so do you want other manegers to through you out and say you can’t come to the same movie theatre or the same store or to the same restaurant because you are slow and different or laugh loud????? I learned about many great important people like Helen Keller and Beethoven and President Roosevelt and Christopher Reeves. Do you think that they should have lived away from others because they have special needs?
If anyone has anthony’s email please send it to me because I want to write him and give him some ideas. I’m also an advocate for children with special needs . I have a petition on line at http://www.ucp.org/rasha. Please sign my petition and tell other people about it too.
God bless,
Rasha kawar
August 19th, 2005 at 4:08 am
I think the manager was put in a very awkward position. It’s hard to fairly judge this from the outside, because we don’t know the extent of the distraction (the volume and the possibly unusual nature of the laughing) but let’s assume that it was unacceptable (obviously if it wasn’t that changes things). I would bet that the manager had a contractual obligation to ensure a reasonable experience for the patrons; and the fact that the manager had to eject a disabled boy to do it was probably one of the most heartbreaking things he had to do in his career. And I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the parents. Let’s be blunt about this, being autistic sucks. Big time. And maybe one of the things that sucks about it is that you can’t attend a regular movie screening. The parents should have realised this and not put that manager in that position. It’s fine to do our best to accommodate disabled people. Honestly. It’s worth some extra cost; some humility, some education, and most of all, understanding. But we have to draw the line somewhere. Is it fair to cut the volume of rock concerts to a whisper so that people disabled with hyperacusis can attend? Is it fair to remove all the protective curbs from the sidewalks so that people disabled in wheelchairs can move about freely? Is it fair to stop 1,000 employees from wearing perfume, because one is allergic? If we don’t, as a society, agree a reasonable cap on this, disabled people will, over time, be elevated to an untouchable superclass, and anyone who dares to question will be sent off in disgrace for some “sensitivity training”.
August 19th, 2005 at 4:12 am
My heart goes out to you. Keep up the good work and may god bless you
August 19th, 2005 at 4:51 am
“And I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the parents.”
I was agreeing with you whole heartedly until I read this. I won’t comment on that remark other than it was very stupid.
“because we don’t know the extent of the distraction.”
No we don’t but I’m willing to bet (and this is from personal experience) that it was due to a patron who was bothered by the fact it was a disabled child. People react differently around the disabled and can’t concentrate because they’re focused on the disability. soon as the child does something (in this case laughing) that normally doesn’t bother them when an average person does it, their irritation and discomfort grows. Sorry but it’s the truth. it happens all the time.
“Let’s be blunt about this, being autistic sucks.”
no kidding. I’m sure you didn’t come to that conclusion from personal experience. the child also had Ceribal Palsey.
“And maybe one of the things that sucks about it is that you can’t attend a regular movie screening.”
Bull… any parent of a disabled child or a disabled adult has the same rights to attend public performances as anyone else. the difference is social acceptance. Because they don’t fit a social norm we can’t hide them away. there are those people who don’t want disabled in stores, in schools (my son was kicked out of JC. even though he got A’s and B’s) so Where do we draw the line??
“Is it fair to cut the volume of rock concerts to a whisper so that people disabled with hyperacusis can attend? Is it fair to remove all the protective curbs from the sidewalks so that people disabled in wheelchairs can move about freely? Is it fair to stop 1,000 employees from wearing perfume, because one is allergic? If we don’t, as a society, agree a reasonable cap on this, disabled people will, over time, be elevated to an untouchable superclass, and anyone who dares to question will be sent off in disgrace for some “sensitivity training”.
That has to be the most rediculous statement I’ve ever heard in all my years of dealing with narrowminded people who have no tollerance for the disabled. All your examples deal with health and safety, not annoyance. A superclass?? what have you been smoking, giving accomidations so that those not as fortunante as yourself can enjoy those things in life that you take for granted is hardly turning anyone into a superclass. I feel you are the one who is truely disabled.
Rick
August 19th, 2005 at 4:56 am
“It’s fine to do our best to accommodate disabled people. Honestly. It’s worth some extra cost; some humility, some education, and most of all, understanding.”
I supose taking this stance elevates your sense of morality and self justification for all the other rediculous things you’ve said. If we draw the line as you suggest this statement is then just meaningless.
August 19th, 2005 at 7:34 am
1. Over priced tickets.
2. Box office staff refusing to accept concession ID.
3. Over priced candy bar.
4. 20 minutes worth of coming attractions.
5. Sitting in the first five rows in a packed theatre and getting neck cramp.
6. Sitting in something sticky.
7. Ushers shining torches in your face while looking for camcorders (it’s already on the net guys, don’t bother).
8. Disgusting bathrooms.
9. Out of focus projectors (everybody’s had at least one).
10. Closing the curtains before the credits have finished rolling.
Now that we’ve been reminded of some of the things the cinema IS responsible for, can we cut the disabled kid some slack?
My best friend in high school had a brother with Down Syndrome and he would sometimes behave in what we would call an inappropriate way. He, of course didn’t know that what he was doing was inappropriate. Yes it was annoying at times, but shit happens and you learn to live with it. He certainly had to.
It would be nice to think that people could stand to be sitting in the same room as a happy child, and let’s face it – penguins are pretty funny.
However, remember a few things:
* Anthony Pratti is 7 years old.
Can anybody here get a 7 year old kid to shut up when you want them to? Please enlighten us as I’m sure there are millions of parents around the world who want to know how its done.
* Anthony Pratti went to a matinee performance of a G-rated film.
This is the session you take kids to, and there were other kids there who were laughing. Anthony was singled out.
* Anthony Pratti was kicked out 15 minutes into the film.
His parents also were not given a chance to quieten him down.
How someone treats disabled people says a lot about them.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:08 am
besides suing the manager and loews, they should sue the MPAA and the producers, distributors, and director of the film for making a movie that forces children to laugh too loudly. especially at appropriate AND inappropriate times. it’s not fair to the other paying customers. they should also sue all of the other children there because this boy was probably forced to laugh louder than normal. since laughter is contagious, it’s no wonder that his funny bone was irritated to a degree that annoys some people.
also, sue the makers of whoopee cushions, feathers, and comic books. sue libraries for having books that make people laugh. sue the makers of movie cameras, sound equipment, and film for allowing their products to be used in inappropriate ways.
all this suing will teach them a lesson: i am crushing your head.
August 19th, 2005 at 8:21 am
Loews corporate office has apologized to Pratti for what happened to Anthony, and says it’s taking steps to ensure it won’t happen again.
“We may not have exercised the best sensitivity in handling this situation,” said John McCauley, senior vice president of marketing for Loews Cineplex Entertainment.
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/08/18/laughter2.html
***********************************************
(idiot corporation lip service.)
sue this guy too.
August 19th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
Not surpiseing. The Theater apologized after the word got out that this event happened. Now all they are doing is trying to cover their butt.
August 19th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
“* Anthony Pratti is 7 years old.
Can anybody here get a 7 year old kid to shut up when you want them to? Please enlighten us as I’m sure there are millions of parents around the world who want to know how its done.”
“* Anthony Pratti went to a matinee performance of a G-rated film.
This is the session you take kids to, and there were other kids there who were laughing. Anthony was singled out.”
I started by saying “we don’t know the extent of the distraction” – and from what you’ve said, it seems unlikely that one child could possibly create enough distraction to be significant. If the manager blindly responded to a complaint (as “Rick” suggests) then I’m on Gina’s side.
Unfortunately, we’ll never know…
August 19th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Thank Jon, for running this story. This shows another good reason to download.
August 19th, 2005 at 3:49 pm
Yes. Then everyone else at the theatre can sue the family (they’ll have money from their own court cases by then) for taking a kid to the theatre and spoiling their film and traumatising their own children!
August 19th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Until I quit smoking, sixteen years ago, I smoked excessively and developed an irritating, uncontrollable cough. Just as young Anthony loves nothing better than going to movies, I was an avid operagoer and attended the opera every chance I got. Opera was my love, my passion. However, I began to realize that each time I coughed it sounded like a loud barking sound and was thoroughly distracting to the other patrons. One night, walking away from the opera house, and realizing that I had ruined the evening’s entertainment for thousands of operagoers, I vowed I would never again go to a live performance unless and until I ever quit smoking and had that vulgar cough under control.
More than ten years passed before I finally kicked the habit. Even then, it was several more years before the cough went away. My point is that I voluntarily deprived myself because I felt it was wrong to force others to endure distractions which can and should be avoided.
One point towers above all others in the discussion of this article: tolerance is in extremely short supply on both sides of the issue. I firmly believe that a person should be able to go to the theater without being subjected to distractions which serve to spoil the experience; but I also feel that persons with handicaps and disabilities should be accorded a degree of leeway.
My heart rallies to Anthony’s side of the issue, and I hate to see any kid ostracized or discriminated against. A child’s laughter is almost as wondrous as a great operatic performance. However, I can also appreciate the fact that the other patrons also have rights. And therein lies the crux. How do we achieve a balance between the rights of all parties involved?
Certainly, we cannot expect Anthony to make a conscientious decision to forego the immense pleasure he experiences when going to the movies. And yet, analyze the situation carefully: after all is said and done, who, alone, has the ability to alleviate the discomfort everyone felt that afternoon?
There is probably a solution that hasn’t been considered — one that would prove satisfactory to all.
Placing blame, calling names, intolerance, law suits, and drawing lines in the sand will not be found in that solution. It seems to me that we see enough of that in the actions of such entities as the RIAA and the MPAA. Let’s not emulate the villainies we decry in others.
August 20th, 2005 at 2:59 am
“Let’s be blunt about this, being autistic sucks. Big time.”
”
I disagree. A quote from a friend: “heh yes at least you get to label it, the rest of us are just messed up
“And maybe one of the things that sucks about it is that you can’t attend a regular movie screening.”
Its never stopped me…
August 20th, 2005 at 6:13 am
Man, you can’t even read the original article correctly before crap comes out of your mouth. First, you said to fix everything, the manager should offer them free tickets to a matinee, where attendance would be lower… IT WAS A MATINEE MORON! And secondly, if you would follow the story closer, it is major news. I live less than 15 miles from this womans house, and she spent most of the day shooing reporters from 7 TV stations in NYC, and all the networks, off of her lawn. If someone (probably you) goes to a G Rated Movie at 1:15pm on a Sunday afternoon and gets mad because a kid is laughing during a good, funny movie, you just need to go out on the highway and step in front of a tractor trailer. The world doesn’t need morons like you reproducing…
August 20th, 2005 at 6:31 am
I think there’s a small difference here, you are a grown man and he is a 7 y/o autistic kid. His parents were not even given the opportunity to quiet him down, they offered, the manager refused and sent them away. Later, in the lobby, the manager had the gall to tell them that they all didn’t have to leave(he was there with his entire family), just Anthony. The right way to handle this was to just ask the parents to quiet him down some. Parents of autistic kids (I am one, I know) know when there child is distrubing others. I have fought the surprsie tantrums in the grocery store and the sudden screaming in church. I know when to remove my child from a situation, and I am sure they do also. To not even be given the chance to rememdy such a small infraction such as laughing too loud is just sad, in any situation, let alone in this particular case.
August 20th, 2005 at 7:11 am
Bravo!!! as a parent of a developmentally disabled child I couldn’t have said it better. we know instinctivly. unfortunatly many in the public have too much fear.
September 2nd, 2005 at 3:59 pm
You’re an asshole.