12/7

I am no expert in this matter. I am not familiar with all the rules and regulations beyond the First Amendment that prevent censorship laws from being passed, nor am I familiar with those that may enable the passing of such laws. I’m half in my mind to refrain from saying what I’m about to say, but I strongly believe that it is a very reasonable suggestion.

Maybe, just maybe, we are being too rigid? Perhaps strict enforcement of the First Amendment, or any other law passed by the Founding Fathers for that matter, is no longer warranted? Maybe we are meant to have exceptions! After all, the creators of our Constitution did not anticipate the invention of the Internet. They did not, while initially constructing these laws, think “Hmm…We should make the First Amendment such that it pertains to ALL forms of speech, no matter what harm they cause…pornography, terrorism, eating disorders…Who cares? We believe in freedom of speech, and that’s that!” Seems ridiculous, right? They had no way of predicting the circumstances with which we are faced today. And just as they made amendments to the Constitution to include items which every human being rightfully deserves (i.e. Bill of Rights), we need to make amendments to items that no longer fit society’s needs.

Yes, this is a complicated process. It will not be easy to determine clear-cut boundaries between what is considered harmful material and borderline, but acceptable, material. Nevertheless, we already have clear-cut definitions for other, unrelated issues. We have very clear, very precise definitions of what constitutes sexual assault and what constitutes consensual sex. We even distinguish between homicide and accidental murder, even though both result in the death of another human being.

So why can’t we distinguish between educational websites about eating disorders and those advocating disordered eating? Such as task seems, to me, conveniently simple compared to the aforementioned distinctions we have already accomplished.

It IS possible to create change. It IS feasible to decide that the First Amendment no longer applies to ALL speech and that it may be restricted in some cases; after all, the Courts made such an exception for broadcast media! They gave clear explanations of why an exception was needed and passed the bill without regard for the public’s approval or disapproval. Claiming that nothing can be done about pro-ana websites would be, quite simply, making excuses for our own lack of initiative in the matter.

Prior to the termination of this Honors project, I will write a letter to Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. I will post the content of the letter once I have it drafted, but it most likely include much of the information I have already posted on here: All the reasons why pro-ana sites should be banned, and every reason why not banning them is quite simply neglect of individuals who cannot make healthy judgments for their own good.

Just as we would not want a suicidal individual to look up ‘tips and tricks’ on how to end his/her life, we do not want those with eating disorders looking up ways to sustain their disorders! Approximately 17.6 million individuals in the US suffer from depression; of those, 265,000 commit suicide each year. An estimated 8 million Americans have an eating disorder; twenty percent of individuals with anorexia will die prematurely due to complications related to their eating disorder, including suicide and heart problems (South Carolina Department of Mental Health, 2006).

While viewing pro-ana websites does not directly cause death, it no doubt sustains disordered eating—and that certainly does increase risk of death. We must take preventative measures while we can, not just for the sake of those with eating disorders, but for the sake of anyone who has a pre-existing condition that makes him/her vulnerable to harmful contents of the Internet—be it pornography, tips on how to commit suicide, self-mutilation methods, or means of maintaining a body mass 15% below the individual’s normal weight.

Ban Pro-ED Websites!