95 replies to this topic

[alex 04]

i miss the The Crayon throwing brat

and i think she gone for good

[robehouse]

Lanthey, you should never have joined a site like this if you were afraid of what it could do to you in real life. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't think it through before joining. Look at all the "Change my Name" or Delete my name" threads on this site. It looks like you let your wanting to indulge in your fantasy life overpower your want to keep this side of you from your real life.

I wish you well in everthing you do. Just think things through before you join a site like this again.

[Bettypooh]

Well Bettypooh, I do not think that argument involving the how-to-guide to murder is relevant as that is on a completely different level. The issue there is it was found someones right to free speech interfered with someones right to live. A good defense would question that connection as the killer may have been psychotic, but it would be difficult. Unfortunately, serial killers copy their methods from books all the time, so I would also question the government's ability to reach their goal in this case. Like I have said though, the level of crackdown on publishing will vary from state to state.

I would not however use this case as a poster child for believing our right to freedom of speech is being taken away.

Off topic but to respond-what I said is the current Federal law interpretation at Appeals level- the only Court that can change that is SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US).The level here does differ some, but the last appeal decision just upheld the previous Circuit Court which essentially said that it is the right of the government to limit the distribution of materials which may be easily used to cause harm to another. Not kill, only harm (which includes killing). Thus with the issue being discussed here, that standard does apply should they choose to use it- AFAIK it has never been cited since. Being that that ruling gave the Government great powers they are hesitant to advertise it by using it, knowing how the people would likely react if they went after a well-known target instead of a very small business like Paladin. I would have never believed any court could issue such a verdict but several did, and I am proud to say that I played a small part in contributing to Paladin's defense fund. What irks me most about that case is that this happened over ten years ago and almost everyone slept right through it. Today it is but one of several dozen faces on that poster you speak of. One day the sleeping giant will awaken and see what's going on. I'm glad that I'm not the giant's enemy!

Bettypooh

[Diapered Jason]

Off topic but to respond-what I said is the current Federal law interpretation at Appeals level- the only Court that can change that is SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US).The level here does differ some, but the last appeal decision just upheld the previous Circuit Court which essentially said that it is the right of the government to limit the distribution of materials which may be easily used to cause harm to another. Not kill, only harm (which includes killing). Thus with the issue being discussed here, that standard does apply should they choose to use it- AFAIK it has never been cited since. Being that that ruling gave the Government great powers they are hesitant to advertise it by using it, knowing how the people would likely react if they went after a well-known target instead of a very small business like Paladin. I would have never believed any court could issue such a verdict but several did, and I am proud to say that I played a small part in contributing to Paladin's defense fund. What irks me most about that case is that this happened over ten years ago and almost everyone slept right through it. Today it is but one of several dozen faces on that poster you speak of. One day the sleeping giant will awaken and see what's going on. I'm glad that I'm not the giant's enemy!

Bettypooh

It is not off topic as I am just questioning your reasoning you used to come to your conclusion, not that it matters though. I would wonder what the court's definition of harm would be, but I can see were the government is coming from in this case and can agree with the court's decision on some level. I imagine a book ranting on about how the holocaust was justified or something similar should not be printed. Probably a how-to-guide on murder should not be printed, but it really depends on the context. If they used Jack the Ripper as an example of a serial killer who was never caught, I would call that a history book. If a writer wrote a story about how someone got away with attempted murder of his wife, because he could not be tried twice for the same crime, I would call that a great movie.

The same reasoning can be applied here. A story written about how to molest a child and get away with it should not be posted, whereas if the story was written about how the author was molested in the past, its probably ok. Stories involving sexual situations involving children I can understand to be a grey area no matter what base it may be, but I would take a good look at the author's intentions as well as context before banning the story. I think the mistake that could be made here is if every decision on banning a story is not taken very seriously.

Note that there is nothing factual about my statements as I did not read any laws regarding this topic before posting. They are just opinions. Read my signature.

[babykeiff]

There are many judgements reached in individual courts worldwide that can be put into question. Accordingly, using a specific court case result as an example is, in my opinion, mute. If you doubt this, can I remind you about the person who successfully sued McDonalds corporation cause she was served hot coffee, and that McDonalds never told her that the coffee, which any reasonable person can expect, was hot!

Similarly, a story on an web site that is intended for the over eighteen year old adults who chose to wear diapers and act infantile, where some play being that age again, ie young enough that wearing diapers and acting infantile and/or wetting and/or messing their clothes is expected - it is reasonable to expect that same descriptive nature would be used in stories. It is the ADULT in us that tells us that said story is fiction.

Between 1932 and 1945, over four thousand publications were destroyed because a group of people disagreed with the book contents. As far as I know, the only copy of these publications exist in the world as first copies in Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland. If you disagree with this freedom that over 70 million people gave their lives to protect, by association, you disagree with what happened on May 8th, 1945.

My personal feelings on the written word does not give me the right to destroy it. I, nor has any other person in the world, got the right, or capability to deny the right of any other individual, present or future, to read or not said written word. My personal choice tells me, and me alone, whether to read said literature.

Currently there are two separate discussions being carried on here:-

1> The right of the owner to control the site contents, which is absolute. The owner can do what he wishes to this site.

2> The freedom of the press / free speech / free choice to publish what one wishes. This freedom, however stifled by current government choices and/or court judgements, is still absolute.

Since members here tend to use court cases as substance to their points of view,

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions." The First Amendment envisions that the sort of robust political debate that takes place in a democracy will occasionally yield speech critical of public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large" - Case 485 US 46, United States Supreme Court - Hustler Magazine Inc vs J. Falwell.

[Diapered Jason]

Between 1932 and 1945, over four thousand publications were destroyed because a group of people disagreed with the book contents. As far as I know, the only copy of these publications exist in the world as first copies in Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland. If you disagree with this freedom that over 70 million people gave their lives to protect, by association, you disagree with what happened on May 8th, 1945.

Oh my gosh, I'll just politely say that there is no connection between DD moderators, the US government, or for that matter anyone here and Hitler. Please do not do that again.

It seems like many times when people complain about their freedoms being stifled by the government and then compare that government to Hitler, they forget to consider other people's rights like the way you just made your post babykeiff. My point has always been people's freedoms have the ability to interfere with other people's freedoms. It is why the civil rights act exists, but this is an age old debate that occurs on every level, and I do not see it ending anytime soon.

Like I said, these things should not be considered lightly. That said, it is not really that big of a deal here and we should probably leave Hitler out of the discussion, ok.

[babykeiff]

Oh my gosh, I'll just politely say that there is no connection between DD moderators, the US government, or for that matter anyone here and Hitler. Please do not do that again.
...

In that statement of yours, you misunderstand my point.

Yes, there is NO connection between DD and/or US government and the 1932-45 controversy. However, the connection exists between those people who wish to destroy literature solely cause they disagree with its content.

[babykeiff]

...
they forget to consider other people's rights
....

...
I, nor has any other person in the world, got the right, or capability to deny the right of any other individual, present or future, to read or not said written word.
...

I do NOT forget to consider your free choice.

[Diapered Jason]

If you want to have a logical debate babykeiff, it is best not to bring up Hitler especially since there is no connection here. Just so you know were I'm coming from, in the US, we have people who try to force there opinions onto others by using scare tactics. A common scare tactic is to compare the people who have the opposite view to Hitler. So naturally, when someone brings Hitler into a political discussion, the rest becomes bullshit to me.

It is also not a good idea to refer to the events that occurred between 1932 and 1945 as a controversy. That can easily be taken as an insult.

As a final remark for this discussion, I hope Lanthey decides to come back. It is always sad to see a member of the community leave, but I hope the best for you Lanthey.

[Sojourner]

Robehouse: if anything, you cause more passive dissension and division in the forums across the breadth of our lifestyle. You did it in DPF for years to no small degree; the current owner, a few long-termers and I had a lengthy discussion recently about your activity there over the years, and the words used in the discourse were "nauseating", "trivial", "self-serving", "instigating" and "antagonistic". And that is precisely what you are doing here. You may delight in it; many across this lifestyle don't.

For the topic at hand: why can't we get stories of this nature and create a new level of membership which preserves a "PG" atmosphere for the rank-and-file membership while generating some revenue for the site? You can call it "DD Fantasy" or whatever seems more appealing, but I can see this being a revenue-generating tool for the site while keeping the average site within a mutually-agreeable level for everyone.

Plus, it'll give underage lurkers less of a remotely legitimate reason to run off to some child-advocacy group and complain, which would, of course, bring this site under public scrutiny, right or wrong. All they would have to do is complain in public enough and regardless of if we prevail or not, morally and/or legally, the damage would be done. We've all seen that happen before in other unrelated instances. I'd think the idea of an exclusive membership section for the purpose of this nature of entertainment is worth looking into for many good reasons, it seems everyone here can benefit from this concept.

[Christine Daryleanne]

Off topic but to respond-what I said is the current Federal law interpretation at Appeals level- the only Court that can change that is SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The US).The level here does differ some, but the last appeal decision just upheld the previous Circuit Court which essentially said that it is the right of the government to limit the distribution of materials which may be easily used to cause harm to another. Not kill, only harm (which includes killing). Thus with the issue being discussed here, that standard does apply should they choose to use it- AFAIK it has never been cited since. Being that that ruling gave the Government great powers they are hesitant to advertise it by using it, knowing how the people would likely react if they went after a well-known target instead of a very small business like Paladin. I would have never believed any court could issue such a verdict but several did, and I am proud to say that I played a small part in contributing to Paladin's defense fund. What irks me most about that case is that this happened over ten years ago and almost everyone slept right through it. Today it is but one of several dozen faces on that poster you speak of. One day the sleeping giant will awaken and see what's going on. I'm glad that I'm not the giant's enemy!

Bettypooh

You would be surprised how on topic this is. Who decides what "easily cause harm" to is? If it is the governemtn then they are acting imporoperly since there must be a saparation of agency between the decider and the implementor. Now, If you set about to encode into law a "can" without a "did", then depending on the mindset and worldview of the implementor that "can [easily cause harm]" can be estropolated so far out that one could ban the Bible, LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER or THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

In rational law, before you can have a case, you need a clear case of specific intent, both in action, persons and venue. In other words If I write a story about a bombing of the Misdatonic Mall and present it as a good idea, there is no Miskatonic Mall. If I write about the bombing of the Providence Place Mall then what. One has to look at the full context. In RED STORM RISING Tom Clancy mentioned the Battle of the Azores. There is such a place as the Azores Now If I present the bombing of the Providence Place Mall as one of a series of terrorist events as part of a fictional story to add verisimilitude that is far different than if I present it as a good idea as a way to attack infidel, capitalist or "New World Order" installations.

The rules here is that you need to establish means, opportunity and motive. Well if you are going to declare a work of fiction as perv or pedo, you must demonstrate intent. If you simply think it has overtones of those then do not read it. That is called "being self-responsible"

In that line, and this is a difficult thing, and getting difficulter and difficulter. as persons become more ambiguous and you have to "read between the lines". Unntil telepathy is developed to such a high degree that you can read a person's mind from the very indirect words in the lines that you mist read between. There is a thin, unsolid line between reading between [the lines] and reading something into the lines. That difference is the same as 'implied" and "inferred". "implied" means that this is a direct result of what is written: "inferred" means that the reader is making the connection between the written and what the reader is thinking is implied.

For those in government to even think of going there is dangerous and evil and is a falsehood since it claims the ability to read minds. In the US that is intoloerable, it having been the case that this was a practice of the 1775 British government so we should know better. More likely we do and this is just an implementation of what Pete Stark (D) CA meant with "We can do whatever we want" or another Democrat, when asked the Constitutionality of "Obama Care" said "That does not matter to me", Both of these quotes represent an attempt at a coup d'etat and would merit prosecution (the method by which a sane polity prtects its principles from being abrogated and abolished), conviction (in this instance the case is prima facie) and the garrote (that being the former European method of dealing with serious attempts of that sort, there being a difference between execution and assassination)

[babykeiff]

If you want to have a logical debate babykeiff, it is best not to bring up Hitler especially since there is no connection here. Just so you know were I'm coming from, in the US, we have people who try to force there opinions onto others by using scare tactics. A common scare tactic is to compare the people who have the opposite view to Hitler. So naturally, when someone brings Hitler into a political discussion, the rest becomes bullshit to me.

It is also not a good idea to refer to the events that occurred between 1932 and 1945 as a controversy. That can easily be taken as an insult.

As a final remark for this discussion, I hope Lanthey decides to come back. It is always sad to see a member of the community leave, but I hope the best for you Lanthey.

The reason I brought up the controversy (1932-1945) was that is the dates the the Nazi party decided to burn books because one or more people decided that the contents of said books were not to be read. This has one problem, in my opinion. Nobody has the ability to decide what another can or cannot read. Lanthey is trying to, by this very topic, tell every member that her opinion on the contents of stories on this site is better than everyone else, and her opinion is that certain topics within a fictional story should not be allowed on this site.

Whether Lanthey's opinion is valid or not is NOT in question. She has a right to her opinion, however, the only people on this site that can make that call is Mike and/or the group of moderators, and they will do that for the good of the site.

If Lanthey choses to leave, then goodbye to her. If it is, as she says, because of some literature, then why not commit suicide. Alfred Hitchcock wrote some great murder-mystery fiction, as did Joseph McFadden, whose books are based in the medical world. I wonder why McFadden used the medical world as a basis of his fiction. Would it be that he is a retired neurosurgeon. If Lanthey had her way, McFadden would be jailed and his books burnt as they are a corrupt influence on Doctors, and one doctor could use the books as a template to murder another person.

I, personally refuse to accept censorship of anything. If I chose to read / not read an article, it is MY sole decision which is based on MY knowledge and experience. I do not want, nor will accept another person no matter whom they pretend to be, telling me that a certain article is unsuitable for me. I, as well as everyone else on this site, is over the age of 18, classed as an adult, which means that we are solely responsible for our own actions, AND do not need nor want another person to baby us as an excuse of pseudo protection. I am aware of the fantasy of 'to baby us' and when I or another member wish that to occur, it is under OUR terms.

Throughout history, every war was fought to try and ensure the freedom to chose, and equality. If you follow any religion, 'free choice' is one of the God given gifts. Man has created the consequences.

If you wish, I will use the Bible vs the Qura'n but due to an understandable bias of a number of members against the Qura'n, it would be extremely difficult to objectively discuss same.

Should we ban / burn the Bible as it does not equate the Roman Catholic version of the ten commandments. (Check Exodus 20)

When censorship begins, who chooses that, AND where does it end. The list of people in history that tried, and failed, to enforce their version of censorship is continually growing.

If a person is a paedophile, no amount of pictures etc. will prevent that person from causing harm to another. Unfortunately, in this case, the person is innocent unless proven guilty, and most countries punish the guilty, not incarcerate the innocent in case they turn out to be guilty.

If you believe in censorship, as Lanthey advocates, by logical conclusion, you are stating that some people are better than others, (i.e. to enforce censorship, a censor must exist = some person / group of people decide what is best for another) which equates to discrimination. If that is true, then I pity you, and there is nothing else on this subject I wish to share with you.

[LilFozzyJ5]

Hi Keiff,

while i agree with a lot of what you have said, i think your feelings on zero censorship are at one extreme of a sliding rule, with complete sensorship such as certain groups have shown over the years at the other end of the scale.
The burning of books is certainly not just a german Phenomenon, and it is not just restricted to books, a few states in the us banned iron maiden and ozzie records in the eighties, which helped them with their sales as to burn it you had to buy it first.

I agree complete sensorship is not the way to go, however nor is complete freedom to allow everything, certain subjects including the focus of this thread have a place in literature, if i may use an example there is a series of books on the abuse of a child in the uk, told by the person abused, written to highlight the plight of abuse, they are very moving books, which left me in tears, partly because of the content and partly because of my own experiences. While difficult to read for some these would be in MY opinion a respectable example of using abuse in a book.
However writing fiction with minors featured, mainly so the main character can get sexual pleasure from it, is not i feel in th same ball park, its not even in the same county.
One of the big concerns for this community is public opinion of us, and with out any prompting, when first hearing of abdl most people immediately start thinking there is a connection with actual kids. Now most of us will certainly set said people straight. But if there is material on this site wth the sort of thing people actually think we are into, then how do we justify such things. every single person on this site and the abdl community as a whole will be tarred with the same feather, it will be like the US witch hunt from history all over again only they will be looking for abdls.

We are not commonly associated by others as murderers, or criminals, or violent people, but people do seem to consider the possiblity that we have some form of attachment with kids, so why the hell do people even think its a good thing to have such things on the site to add fuel to the already raging fire...

Now throughout this thread there are plenty of people shouting many things such as, 'if you see it that why you should seek help', and 'to sensor all works with an child depiction is wrong', i dont need to go on you can all read. Also Lanthey has come under considerable attack, some of it reasoned and some totally unreasonable.

People this is a community, someone in our community was concerned, worried, for themselves and for others here and they spoke out, all the advocators of freedom of speech and freedom of censorship in this thread have done exactly the opposite and tried to shut down these concerns and discussed how they shouldnt have raised this issue. This is a exactly the sort of thing you are arguing against, mob rules, mob trying to shut someone down.

The last point I will make is this, many also state that only abdls will know of this place and find it, your living in a dream world. after every program or report on an adult wearing nappies, people jump online and search. there are plenty of people that pop into the chat room and when you look at theirprofile they have only just joined and their status says curious...who's to say these people are curious as to what goes on in the abdl world, whos to say they will see a positive place, whos to say they want to see it all in a positive way? Im not advocating all curious people coming here are haters of our life, im saying its a posibility.

[babykeiff]

LilFozzyJ5,

I completely understand many of your points. My own personal opinion of some books is that they are junk, and should not be read, but my opinion does not matter to anyone else other than me.

In reference to this site, and the contents of fiction, people will chose to read what they want and make their own judgement based on their own experiences. To assume otherwise is a mistake. To try and tell a person what to think, act or do, is also foolish.

If Mike or the moderators chose to censor some of this site, it is their choice and we, being members here, have no option but to accept. The reason being, it is Mike & the moderators responsibility for the contents of this site, not yours or mine.

As adults, we have the responsibility to educate our offspring - which is only one little thing - to teach them to make a decision based on sound rational thought, and not to blindly follow everyone else.

There will always be people in the world that will not accept our choices, and will associate ABDL with paedophilia due to IMHO, lack of knowledge, and nothing you or I can say or do will prevent that. Does that mean that we, as members here, have to censor the contents here to try and prevent what can not be prevented? We distance ourselves from publicly exposing ourselves due to the bias of the limited few by using nicknames etc., while a few expose themselves - and history proves, have paid the cost. The reason they were prosecuted was not for their brand of interest, but for causing harm to another person / group of people. As silly as the legal system is, it works to try and enforce the freedom which we should all be allowed to enjoy.

Despite the worlds best efforts, discrimination exists and is practised on an hourly basis. We are all equal, and should treat each other as our equal. That means that each persons choices should not cause harm to another. It is a hard concept to live by, and can be even more difficult when one has an intrest like ABDL that does not conform to the social norm.

I thought this site was set up to encourage tolerance of each other - where the choices of its members was fully accepted by each other. If we treat each other equally, there would be no crime etc, since crime itself is a selfish act, and not one of caring and equal treatment to ones fellow person.

Freedom is for everyone or for no-one. Anything else is a form of discrimination, and I will gladly give my life to ensure my freedom.

[LilFozzyJ5]

*sigh...i will try one more time and then i will lift up the flag and give up.

ok as adults, i agree we have a lot to teach children, sound rational thought, and freedom of speech/ a halt on sensorship are noble ideas, and they should be encouraged to seek them, however you and i live in the real world and we have both been here some time, in the real world life is not fair, there is no fairy tale ending, and because our societies (we are in different ones you and i) have rules and laws to govern us, within these rules and laws that allow us to live in 'civilised' societies, there are rules about certain things the entire population agrees are not acceptable, one of these things is the subject of this discussion. So being a law abiding citizen (As i hope you are) I cannot for the life of me see how you or anyone else on this site can indeed think it is ok to have such content that could be deemed as inapropriate in OUR societies, and further more i cannot believe there are those that actually think it is ok and should be encouraged.


Yes some people will already make up their mind we have said links, we cannot do anything about that, but for gods sake why give them ammunition, why give even a hint that they might actually have the right idea? Why would anyone on here think it is ok to write/read/talk or fantasise about underage people in comprimising situations...ever...period.
Dont we also have a duty of care to our children to protect them from the very thing some people are writing about? isnt that something else we are suppose to do for our children?

You say its up to Mike and the moderators, I agree to a certain extent... however we all have a duty of care and right to speak out if we feel there is something wrong, you, me and anyone else, Mike and the gang are only human, and they may not catch everything, which has been highlighted by this thread. They are the rule makers, we are the voice, the concience.
perhaps one of the mods or Mike himself may comment on that, again thats up to them.

To say that the general members on here have no right to speak out, only the mods and Mike can...is censorship, the very thing you advocate against.

For me there is nothing else to say, I have tried very hard to get my point across intelligently and respectfully, I hope I have managed to.

[babykeiff]

*sigh...i will try one more time and then i will lift up the flag and give up.

ok as adults, i agree we have a lot to teach children, sound rational thought, and freedom of speech/ a halt on sensorship are noble ideas, and they should be encouraged to seek them, however you and i live in the real world and we have both been here some time, in the real world life is not fair, there is no fairy tale ending, and because our societies (we are in different ones you and i) have rules and laws to govern us, within these rules and laws that allow us to live in 'civilised' societies, there are rules about certain things the entire population agrees are not acceptable, one of these things is the subject of this discussion. So being a law abiding citizen (As i hope you are) I cannot for the life of me see how you or anyone else on this site can indeed think it is ok to have such content that could be deemed as inapropriate in OUR societies, and further more i cannot believe there are those that actually think it is ok and should be encouraged.


Yes some people will already make up their mind we have said links, we cannot do anything about that, but for gods sake why give them ammunition, why give even a hint that they might actually have the right idea? Why would anyone on here think it is ok to write/read/talk or fantasise about underage people in comprimising situations...ever...period.
Dont we also have a duty of care to our children to protect them from the very thing some people are writing about? isnt that something else we are suppose to do for our children?

You say its up to Mike and the moderators, I agree to a certain extent... however we all have a duty of care and right to speak out if we feel there is something wrong, you, me and anyone else, Mike and the gang are only human, and they may not catch everything, which has been highlighted by this thread. They are the rule makers, we are the voice, the concience.
perhaps one of the mods or Mike himself may comment on that, again thats up to them.

To say that the general members on here have no right to speak out, only the mods and Mike can...is censorship, the very thing you advocate against.

For me there is nothing else to say, I have tried very hard to get my point across intelligently and respectfully, I hope I have managed to.

You have got you point across extremely intelligently and respectfully, and I admire and respect you for that.

1 - This site is 18+, which by that very fact protects its contents against the under aged.

2- I do agree that certain subjects should not be in print, but my opinion, nor the opinion of anyone else should effect the authors right to print what he/she wishes to print, as to do so would curtail the rights of said author.

3 -How can we specify what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, on behalf of someone else. To do so is denying another of their freedoms - the freedom of the author to print what he/she wishes, AND the freedom of another person to read what he/she wishes. In history, we learn more from the mistakes of the past rather than what was done correctly.

I completely agree on the age appropriate cinema and movie classification applied to films, and the similar system applied to fiction. However, none of this classification prevents denies a persons rights - to enjoy / avoid a book / film based on the persons free choice.

The US supreme court case Falwell vs Husler tried to explain the stupidity of trying to judge and legislate taste. Fiction on this site may not be to everyone's taste, but eliminating it here does NOT stop it from being produced, and one would be foolish to try.

The world will forever try and control taste but, Thomas Jefferson said it better 'Taste cannot be controlled by law'.

Whether you (or another) likes or dislikes a specific prose does NOT give the you (or another) authority to deny another person from reading same.

[belinda_sue_fox]

You have got you point across extremely intelligently and respectfully, and I admire and respect you for that.

1 - This site is 18+, which by that very fact protects its contents against the under aged.

2- I do agree that certain subjects should not be in print, but my opinion, nor the opinion of anyone else should effect the authors right to print what he/she wishes to print, as to do so would curtail the rights of said author.

3 -How can we specify what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, on behalf of someone else. To do so is denying another of their freedoms - the freedom of the author to print what he/she wishes, AND the freedom of another person to read what he/she wishes. In history, we learn more from the mistakes of the past rather than what was done correctly.

I completely agree on the age appropriate cinema and movie classification applied to films, and the similar system applied to fiction. However, none of this classification prevents denies a persons rights - to enjoy / avoid a book / film based on the persons free choice.

The US supreme court case Falwell vs Husler tried to explain the stupidity of trying to judge and legislate taste. Fiction on this site may not be to everyone's taste, but eliminating it here does NOT stop it from being produced, and one would be foolish to try.

The world will forever try and control taste but, Thomas Jefferson said it better 'Taste cannot be controlled by law'.

Whether you (or another) likes or dislikes a specific prose does NOT give the you (or another) authority to deny another person from reading same.

Jibberish wrapped up in waffle.

[sarah_ab]

mmmm did somebody say waffle???

i like waffles...

[babykeiff]

Jibberish wrapped up in waffle.

In the UK, the head of state, and the person in control is HM The Queen. Your democratically elected parliament, head by the prime minister is supposed to run / be responsible for the country, and out of convention, HM The Queen respects the choices made by the prime minister. That democratic process gives each member of the UK the right to freely chose whom they wish to represent them, and by the same free democratic process, the right to object.

Do you wish to relinquish that freedom and allow your appointed House of Lords to make all decisions for your life and future?


Further information in relation to the UK political system can be found here

If the freedom of the press was curtailed, Lady Diana Spencer would not have needed to request the British Public not to purchase newspapers that contained pictures of her and Prince Charles children in order to ensure their privacy, AND, I am sorry to bring this one up, the accident that caused the death of Dodi Al Fayed and Lady Diana Spencer would not have occured if the combination of dangerous driving and harassment by press did not occur.

As I said previously, in some cases, the privacy of one should outweigh the freedom of another, but freedom is absolute, even when we don't like it.

[belinda_sue_fox]

Soooooo.....

These stories shouldn't be banned because it will lead to dangerous driving???

Like i said jibberish wrapped up in waffle.