Goodbye :(

[drynot]

Hmmm... The interesting thing about morality is the majority outside this community probably consider us immoral whether we write stories involving children or not. I guess it all comes down to how the majority of this community thinks they will be perceived.

Right on Jason.....we're gonna be thrown under the bus no matter what simply because we wear diapers to begin with....

[WBDaddy]

At no point was I “throwing a tantrum

[Bettypooh]

Lanny, if you weren't trying to cause drama or put yourself in the spotlight, you wouldn't have started this thread. Let's not kid ourselves.

I disagree, though I can understand why you feel this way I have left sites and forums myself before, and as Lanthey did I usually posted a 'last message' so that people would understand what was going on and why I was leaving I wasn't trying to do anything more than that, and it is much the same here as I see it Everyone will have a different perspective on anything, and we can learn a lot of understanding by trying to see it from their point of view Lanthey has helped make this place what is is with her presence, and just as with anyone else fitting that description I am saddened to see that come to an end There are many things in the world beyond our control and every one of us does what we think best for us. Were it not for Lanthey making her thoughts known it is possible this site could have been in trouble over things we weren't highly aware of- now we have a chance to ensure that DailyDiapers will endure

Though I have less to lose than Lanthey should I be discovered and outed, I had to think very hard before joining this site. My association here could negatively impact my career and many other things I don't want to lose Almost all of us have something we could lose from being here but IMHO this is more than offset by the good that can be found here- that's why I went ahead and joined and that's why I'm staying Everyone else has to make that decision for themselves and whatever they may decide I wish them well now and in the future

Bettypooh

[babykeiff]

1. The mature discrete way to discuss babyjennies story is either PM the author or an administrator. What you have done is created a thread to expose your view and your choice of censorship.

2. The 'last post' idea does not have much weight considering that the person is running away and will never be back to substantiate any claims made.

3. Looking at the posts here, and the reputation points being assigned, it is repetitively easy to discover who is the few who neg- reps without comment.

4. To fully agree with previous posters here, the contents of fiction does NOT dictate the actions of the author nor the actions of the reader. There is a difference between fiction and fact, which most learn during their childhood. How far do you wish this site / the world as a whole to go. Do you wish to control free choice and free thought.... as in your complaints you are trying to control speech - or more correctly, fiction.

5. Lanthey, I pity you, your closed mind, and the children you influnce. If you are afraid to stand up for yourself, and the freedom that people better than you and I gave their life for, you have no right being around children. A young mind is a gift to be nurtured and allowed grow, not to be stiffled by repressive discriminatory thoughts and actions.

[WBDaddy]

Though I have less to lose than Lanthey should I be discovered and outed, I had to think very hard before joining this site. My association here could negatively impact my career and many other things I don't want to lose.

No, I'm sorry, but the only people that have something to lose by being a member here are people that were foolish enough to do things like provide real names or other PII when registering or using handles they use on "normal" sites (I have one that I use for innocuous sites, and it is dramatically different than the one I use here).

One can only be "discovered" to be a member here if one leaves the proverbial trail of bread crumbs. Granted, there are many members here and at other sites similar to this who are intent on "outing" themselves, in an effort to bring AB/DL into the mainstream as our "big brother/sister" BDSM has become, but someone who truly values their privacy has many avenues by which they may maintain their privacy.

To address your other point about "announcing" departures, I have quit many forums, some of which I have been a member for years, for one reason or another. I've never posted an "announced" departure - other than a site I was intending to take over as admin, until the owners sabotaged every effort I tried to make to bring new traffic to the site attached to the forum. Any time I left quietly, people who actually gave a shit would e-mail me and ask me where I went, and I would cordially respond and explain what issues I had that caused me to stop posting. However, in the 14 or so years I've been involved in forums, the only people I've ever seen "announce" their departure were doing so with the explicit purpose in mind of stirring up a bunch of drama, evidenced by their continual return to the thread in question (which we have already seen here) to "respond" to people like myself calling them out for being melodramatic.

If the OP actually cared about the site, the OP would have raised this issue without attaching their "quitting" to it.

If the OP just intended to disconnect themselves from the site, they would have done so quietly, without a great deal of hoopla.

The OP did neither. Thus, based on historical precedence, I can only conclude the OP intended to stir up a bunch of drama, which they then participated in by responding further in the thread after they "left".

PS: Bang away with your neg reps, people. I've got plenty piled up just from the stories I've written to survive your stealth flame attacks.

[Rihanna]

1. The mature discrete way to discuss babyjennies story is either PM the author or an administrator. What you have done is created a thread to expose your view and your choice of censorship.......

4. To fully agree with previous posters here, the contents of fiction does NOT dictate the actions of the author nor the actions of the reader. There is a difference between fiction and fact, which most learn during their childhood. How far do you wish this site / the world as a whole to go. Do you wish to control free choice and free thought.... as in your complaints you are trying to control speech - or more correctly, fiction.

5. Lanthey, I pity you, your closed mind, and the children you influnce. If you are afraid to stand up for yourself, and the freedom that people better than you and I gave their life for, you have no right being around children. A young mind is a gift to be nurtured and allowed grow, not to be stiffled by repressive discriminatory thoughts and actions.

.........If the OP actually cared about the site, the OP would have raised this issue without attaching their "quitting" to it.

If the OP just intended to disconnect themselves from the site, they would have done so quietly, without a great deal of hoopla.

The OP did neither. Thus, based on historical precedence, I can only conclude the OP intended to stir up a bunch of drama, which they then participated in by responding further in the thread after they "left"......

All good points, much of which is similar to what I was going to write.

The only thing I can add is that if Lanthey were to get outed for being on this board, her career would be over anyway because of the content, not because someone randomly found one or more FICTION stories containing minors.

I've read about half the story. I vote to leave it up.

[Lanthey]

I'm not going to even try and reply to you're ridiculous comments, you've made judgements about me and my life and you don't even know me. I really couldn't care less about your opinion of me, or what I was "trying to do". I know what I've written is truthful and that is all that matters.

Bettypooh - Thank you, you are a sweetie

I'm un subscribing to this thread now. Feel free to continue insulting me if it makes you feel better, I couldn't care less.

[Bettypooh]

To take your response in order and show you my reasoning-

1. The purpose of forums is to discuss things- including what one thinks or feels. Lanthey could have PM'ed the author as you say, but it wasn't the single author she wanted to address; it was many authors and the Admin team she wanted to share her ideas with so her choice of posting instead of sending dozens of PM's was appropriate

2. The 'last post' doesn't allow for a response unless the person returns, but if the poster wasn't seeking a discussion it does serve a purpose. For years to come Lanthey's posts will remain available and if someone wonders why they stopped they will be able to know that

3. You may surmise all you want to, but you are the one who would be surprised at who does the neg-repping which the Admins can see but the members can't And you can be certain that Admins (including me) don't abuse the Rep system though as members we are allowed to use it too

4. Earlier in this thread I broadly cited what happened to Paladin Press to illustrate why your concept of what is free and allowable speech is in error. Here's the details so you can better understand that you no longer have that right Paladin published and sold a fiction book that outlined how you could murder someone and get away with it. They had a disclaimer in front making it positively clear that they did not condone murder; that they did not write the content and that they might not agree with it; and that it was just a work of fiction- not real- and that it should be taken as such. Well wouldn't you know some idiot followed the book nearly to the letter in committing a murder Of course that made the finding and convicting of this fool easy- which was good But the government then went after Paladin on the grounds that they were responsible for promoting and disseminating an idea which was clearly illegal and the doctrine of "free speech' went somewhere in a hand-basket Sadly this case went through several layers of courts who should have protected Paladin but didn't. Even with tens or hundreds times the resources DD has they knew they couldn't match the government's resources at the next stage- SCOTUS, so they would have little chance of getting off cleanly even though they should have. They also knew that by following the governments simple request of no longer publishing thoughts which could be misused to harm people they could avoid the potential for jail time and loss of everything they had ever worked for. They caved which let the last ruling stand, and now the law says that someone who publishes something which gets misused bears some responsibility for the content of what they published So whether anyone likes it or not (and we both don't), DD can be held accountable for what is published here,and being intelligent he is going to make sure that doesn't cross the line into illegality. It is not censorship in any way; it is an unwanted but sane and necessary decision of what goes too far to be within the allowable bounds of the law.

5 You may pity Lanthey and claim she was weak, but I see the opposite Instead of just skulking away, she spoke openly about what she believed knowing there would be dissent. Her mind was open to the various possibilities- including the bad ones. She exhibited a depth of thought through many steps of logic as she did a risk-benefit analysis of it all, then decided for her in remaining the risk was no longer worth it And she was a bright spot here, same as many who will read this are.

This world is not what we want it to be. The wide range of rights and freedoms envisioned by the founders of America that we were taught of in school and that we held so dear have been quietly thinned out leaving us less than free. There is no more free speech in America when you can be prosecuted for what someone else said simply by repeating it. Welcome to Amerika today

Bettypooh

[Diapered Jason]

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.

[Repaid1]

And allow me to chime in. As was mentioned previously in this thread, both to do and was already done. Lanthey did indeed inform me of her feelings for this story before this thread. As she mentioned it wasn't just the story itself but her beliefs pertaining to it and others of this nature. I don't see how people on here think they know what is right for someone else. What works for you doesn't for others. Lanthey shared her feelings with me hopefully as a friend and a Moderator of this site. Now for whatever reason once she informed me, her decision was speed up faster than those of us admins could either read or form a opinion on the subject matter.

But what did happen was behind closed doors. The admin team did discuss a course of action and there in have developed a ruff draft of site rules. In which decisions were made at various pages of this site. This does include the stories section. "WE" feel these are decisions that not only protect the site and members but help retain membership of valued members such as "The Crayon throwing brat" (Private joke). These rules I imagine are about to be debuted. Some may be up for discussion, some probably are set in stone. So be it. This is a site for all (well most) and you can't please everyone, but we are trying gang

It is Lanthey decision to go for whatever reason, just as it hers to come back if she feels the issue is resolved to her satisfaction. I would hope we can just drop this thread, and welcome her back if she so chooses.

P.S. Plus 1 BP on the neg- comment. You people have no clue..I actually am quite surprised who votes what on a day to day basis. I use that info to help me get to know each and everyone who uses the system. So for the good, those for the bad. (I see you! )

[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.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

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.