Should ISPs remove pro-ana sites or is this a breach of freedom of speech?
I think there are very valid arguments both for and against the removal of pro ana sites. pro ana sites ultimately provide a place for anorexics to talk and share ideas on the best way to starve themselves, often to their death. Where ordinarily a particular idea to lose weight and deceive those around them might not occur to an anorexic, these sites mean that many people don’t get help with their condition in time, or when they do, are resistant to treatment. For every doctor and family member trying to help the anorexic recover, there are many more people the anorexic has met on a pro ana site, who encourage the anorexic to resist treatment and ‘stick to their guns’ so to speak. This, surely can’t been seen as a good thing, and and is an extremely valid argument for their removal. However, I believe that in the case of ‘pro ana’ sites, freedom of speech wins. I don’t think they should be removed by ISPs. I believe that any restrictions palced on these sites should be done by individu
ISPs, being private entities, have the right to do business with whomever they choose or choose not to. That’s not censorship; it’s a mutually consensual decision between private parties. Many ISPs refuse to host sexually explicit or offensive sites. Then again, there are ISPs that promote themselves as advocates of free speech and make no restrictions on the types of content that they will host (provided that the client is willing to pay the service fee, of course). Only when government lays down the law and says, “You are forbidden to express this viewpoint or disseminate this information,” does it become censorship, for I no longer have the right to express myself, even if I am willing to pay the costs and engage other consenting adults.
