Dealing With Severely, Mentally Ill Members

[sarah_ab]

my guess is the people who appear 'mentally ill' are just losers with nothing better to do... while those who do struggle with mental illness on a daily basis are the contributing members....

i think those select few members who many take issue with are just lonely, lame people with nothing better to do and who enjoy the 'shock' factor. I believe they don't have the guts to do any of what they talk about here, in real life, and live in a complete fantasy world through this website, and you know what... thats one of the joys of the internet....that you can do that....

[Guest refridginator]

dude rocker i think you're right. nobody who avoids their problems knows how serious it is until they get help. it definitely isn't good for someone to use this "lifestyle" as an escape who already isn't in that good of shape.

EDIT: well, maybe not like restricting anyones' posts... i don't know how that's going to help them, but i'd rather tell them myself that I think they should seek help. It'd probly help get the message across better.

[jeremy12312]

This thread

Isn't narcissism a mental defect, too?

[XxWillowxX]

I'm not sure if its been brought up but isn't restricking people with mental illness in areas on a public forum agienst the disability discrimanion (i think i spelt that right) act? even if we don't think its suiteable for them to be here we have to show the same respect we want to be given to us. If this thing was also put into place I'd be leaving because I believe in equial rights to all race, religion, gender and disabilites..

Reason for this is because I was on a forum where this was put in affect and me and others left because the people that stayed were just assholes towards others and they used that rule as an excuse to behave like that. snother reason why i'd be agienst it is because it singles them out.

I'm sorry if i'm taking this a lil too personal but It might have to do with the fact I suffer from down syndrome minor case but still suffer from it and it does have mental issues.

[Goerge]

I'm not sure if its been brought up but isn't restricking people with mental illness in areas on a public forum agienst the disability discrimanion (i think i spelt that right) act? even if we don't think its suiteable for them to be here we have to show the same respect we want to be given to us. If this thing was also put into place I'd be leaving because I believe in equial rights to all race, religion, gender and disabilites..

Reason for this is because I was on a forum where this was put in affect and me and others left because the people that stayed were just assholes towards others and they used that rule as an excuse to behave like that. snother reason why i'd be agienst it is because it singles them out.

I'm sorry if i'm taking this a lil too personal but It might have to do with the fact I suffer from down syndrome minor case but still suffer from it and it does have mental issues.

Totally agree,

[timmyc]

my guess is the people who appear 'mentally ill' are just losers with nothing better to do... while those who do struggle with mental illness on a daily basis are the contributing members....

i think those select few members who many take issue with are just lonely, lame people with nothing better to do and who enjoy the 'shock' factor. I believe they don't have the guts to do any of what they talk about here, in real life, and live in a complete fantasy world through this website, and you know what... thats one of the joys of the internet....that you can do that....

One man's crazy is another man's funny

Just seems like a Witch hunt to me

[ErinM]

I'm not sure if its been brought up but isn't restricking people with mental illness in areas on a public forum agienst the disability discrimanion (i think i spelt that right) act? even if we don't think its suiteable for them to be here we have to show the same respect we want to be given to us. If this thing was also put into place I'd be leaving because I believe in equial rights to all race, religion, gender and disabilites..

The Americans with Disabilities Act only protects against businesses discriminating against you by not hiring you for a job.

This forum isn't a convention business and you aren't being hired for a job.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

[ErinM]

Totally agree,

Does England/the UK have a similar law? The ADA wouldn't help you since you aren't a US citizen. And if the UK/England had a similar law it wouldn't help you either since DailyDiapers is based in the US.

[XxWillowxX]

Actully there would be a cross sub act somewhere with dealing with such acts if ur in another contury for example u still have the same protection rights. uk does have simler acts.

[timmyc]

The Americans with Disabilities Act only protects against businesses discriminating against you by not hiring you for a job.

This forum isn't a convention business and you aren't being hired for a job.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

It is not just about hiring. From you own citation.

Facilities)

See 42 U.S.C. § 12181–12189.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG")[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A."

Title III also has application to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182((2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is "readily achievable," defined as "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards may be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment, the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, many thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in many thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other ADA title.

That being said, I do not know if this board constitutes a business or not. I don't think of it as business but the person paying the bills might feel otherwise. I am pretty sure Mike reserves the right to ban people based on rules violations, but has stated previously that isn't the case here. If the state declares some a danger to themselves or others and puts them in a rubber room, then I guess any problem would be solved. I am also sure, sexual predators can be forbidden to access certain web sites. Win or lose would we really want the publicity an ADA lawsuit would bring? (I didn't think so) A handful of people not like a particular poster does not constitute mental incapacitation. Personally, I question the mental stability of someone (no one in particular) who want to play god on someone's website.

[diamondback6881]

It is not just about hiring. From you own citation.

Facilities)

See 42 U.S.C. § 12181–12189.

Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG")[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A."

Title III also has application to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182((2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is "readily achievable," defined as "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards may be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment, the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, many thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in many thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other ADA title.

That being said, I do not know if this board constitutes a business or not. I don't think of it as business but the person paying the bills might feel otherwise. I am pretty sure Mike reserves the right to ban people based on rules violations, but has stated previously that isn't the case here. If the state declares some a danger to themselves or others and puts them in a rubber room, then I guess any problem would be solved. I am also sure, sexual predators can be forbidden to access certain web sites. Win or lose would we really want the publicity an ADA lawsuit would bring? (I didn't think so) A handful of people not like a particular poster does not constitute mental incapacitation. Personally, I question the mental stability of someone (no one in particular) who want to play god on someone's website.

This is an internet forum, not a building. Therefore, title III of the ADA doesn't apply.

As to whether this is considered a business or not, I'd like Angela to weigh in.

[XxWillowxX]

Actully no, unless its stated in the rules of the community that the community takes no responsability's for there members actions the discrimnation act does apply, it doesn't have to be a building for it to take affect, are you going to tell me next that if I get discriminated in the streets I can't enforce the act?

[sarah_ab]

depends on what you are considering 'discrimination'

[XxWillowxX]

Isn't it when someone feels they are being judged negitivly (in this case) on there health or disability?

[sarah_ab]

feel is very subjective, i mean if someone yells out to me "retard" because i'm making crazy noises on the street... i may feel judged negatively but its not really discrimination, because i was denied no legal rights.... his yelling that out is protected under freedom of speech....

[XxWillowxX]

oh ok, I didn't relise that sorry.

[sarah_ab]

ohh no worries, thats why i was saying it depends on what the 'discrimination' was... sometimes its a form of discrimination, but if brought to court could be considered something else, like a hate crime, or an assualt etc... it depends on the action and stuff....

[Angela Bauer]

This is an internet forum, not a building. Therefore, title III of the ADA doesn't apply.

As to whether this is considered a business or not, I'd like Angela to weigh in.

There are no cases of an internet site being held to the ADA standards. If it becomes necessary to do so I am confident Daily Di can write terms of service (TOS) for Daily Diapers that will take care of the situation without discrimination.The purpose of rules is to ensure support and communication for the benefit of all members.

[toon]

Toon, you're always welcomed here.

thanks dude!

[Horndog]

This thread turned into... I don't know what, but it's funny.

I've been writing back and forth in PMs and e-mails with some members here on DD and we were talking about discrimination and how it doesn't exactly apply to what I was talking about on here earlier.

I gave this analogy:

You're at a party with all different kinds of people in the room and you don't know most of these people personally. Chances are that you'll find people who have some degree of mental illness. Nobody is perfect, but everyone is getting along relatively well. Suddenly, the crowd hears some strange noises. They turn to the source of the noise and they see someone bashing their head repeatedly against the wall. People find it's unusual, but they tolerate it and think, "Well, he's probably drunk or something," but the guy continuously bashes his head against the wall. This happens for about an hour. People ask each other, "Who is this guy? What is he doing?" and they're told that the guy is schizophrenic and he's trying to get the voices out of his head. A few partygoers cheer him on and tell him that it's "okay" to bang his head against the wall because they personally don't mind him doing that. He heeds their advice and continues. After a while, his activity is so unusual and obscene that people ask him to leave the party, but he won't leave because he personally feels that he doesn't deserve to. At this point, everyone else at the party distracted by his activity. After reaching a consensus, the partygoers feel that he needs help so the group comes together to console this man and help him. In the process, they escort him out of the room to console him so that the party remains uninterrupted, but they keep the door open in case he wants to come back.

This isn't discrimination of his mental illness. This is someone endangering themselves uncontrollably while causing others to be distracted from partaking in an event or gathering.

[Missy Q]

Om nom nom.

[sarah_ab]

my concern would be asking the people who encouraged him to leave, for they are the true disrupters... encouraging someone to engage in their delusions... The man with schizophrenia has a brain disorder of which he has absolutely no control.... people posting on a bulletin board have the ability to hit the delete button... bad analogy....

I make noises, touch things, flap my hands, kick my feet, twist my body this way and that, shout out words and phrases... it can be quite disruptive to other people... but i would be incredibly offended if someone asked me to leave someplace... whether it be a party, a store, a restaurant.... if someone is hurting themself it is one thing to step in and stop it, if they have strange behavior that bothers you... then you have the choice to leave or ignore it.

and as a side note. if you know someone who has schizophrenia no amount of 'consoling' will help them. If you believe person with schizophrenia has become a danger to them self or others please call the police immediately, the only way to stop a schizophrenic episode is through medication. A person who is having strong delusions due to schizophrenia or any other mental illness can become violent towards themselves or others very quickly and it could be unsafe to provoke them.

[Guest NaughtyAshes]

This thread:

[Bettypooh]

The Americans with Disabilities Act only protects against businesses discriminating against you by not hiring you for a job.

This forum isn't a convention business and you aren't being hired for a job.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

It also covers public accessibility issues and sets minimum standards for that, as well as setting minimum standards for home implementation of assisting items such as rails and ramps One guy I knew didn't get paid because the entrance ramp he built was too steep, and another guy had to get a written variance over a landing that was one inch too narrow

It also makes sure that there are adequate numbers of wheelchair accessible units incorporated into new apartment buildings. AFAIK there are no standards required for internet access, and in most states the holder of a property (website) has the ability to select who they wants there so long as no CRA 1964 Title VII discrimination is occurring

Bettypooh

[Horndog]

I make noises, touch things, flap my hands, kick my feet, twist my body this way and that, shout out words and phrases... it can be quite disruptive to other people... but i would be incredibly offended if someone asked me to leave someplace... whether it be a party, a store, a restaurant.... if someone is hurting themself it is one thing to step in and stop it, if they have strange behavior that bothers you... then you have the choice to leave or ignore it.

Do you know of a little thing called reality, where if you behave inappropriately in a public setting, you will either be asked to leave, removed by force or arrested?

Some people in communities can't help themselves but to "act out." I've seen many examples of that over the years, and in every instance, they were booted for causing a disruption and violating the rules. I don't see that happen here and in many known AB/DL communities. However, I have a different philosophy. I don't want them banned, just monitored or have their accounts limited almost like it's a posting curfew. Only when behavior improves is when the restrictions on the account are lifted. There's a reward incentive for acting appropriately pursuant to the community rules and guidelines: something we have yet to establish.