12/6

While United States’ efforts are not comforting, other countries are actively taking appropriate action to ban pro-ana sites. Australia has announced its intention to enact a compulsory internet censorship to control access to anorexia- and bulimia-related sites. Facebook and MySpace are also among the list of 2,000 sites to be banned. The reasons for including these social networking sites in the are extreme and not related to eating disorders, and thus are beyond the scope of this discussion (Just as a side note…imagine the reactions of US citizens if the government ever proposed such a ban!)

Other countries, such as China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, which have known and experienced Internet censorship, know firsthand the effects that lack of knowledge can have on a population. Most likely, they would strongly oppose this movement. The problem with Australia’s proposal is, perhaps, its extremity. Not all websites that have unconventional content need to be banned—they need to restrict their censorship solely to websites that harm minors or unprotected individuals, and only then could they have the chance of receiving positive feedback regarding their chosen course of action.

With the case of eating disorders, the purpose of banning pro-ana websites would be to protect anorexics from themselves. Let me call your attention to a Supreme Court quote regarding COPA: “there is potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech had the law gone into effect.”

Now, let me pose this question: Isn’t there potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon the well-being of eating-disordered individuals if the NO law goes into effect? Yes-it is arguable whether pro-ana sites directly cause harm to their visitors. Yes-most who visit these sites already have eating disorders. Correct-these websites most likely do not directly cause eating disorders in individuals. But aren’t we doing a disservice to these individuals by enabling them to engage in this risky ritual of connecting with others over dysfunctional and harmful behaviors? If we have the power to do so, shouldn’t we stop them from further harming themselves? Why aren’t we do so?

It would be regrettable if the only way to prove this point as to conduct an ethical study where cause and effect of these sites would be determined. Is making individuals browse these sites continuously and (potentially) causing an eating disorder in individuals the only way to convince the government that censorship must be enforced on these sites? Do we really have to resort to this?

Clearly, this would never happen. The IRB would never agree to such a preposterous idea—nor would (I hope) any experimenters wish to cause significant harm to their participants. But what exactly are we supposed to do? Sit back and hope that individuals with eating disorders will no longer find these websites appealing? Hope that the administrators of these websites will independently decide to shut down their website (quite an unrealistic hope, more so than the one aforementioned, since those who created these websites often suffer from severe eating disorders themselves).