I believe it's clear that pro-ana websites are harmful. Despite their claims to be support communities for those with eating disorders, they encourage dangerous practices that can lead to health problems and even death. Now, legal minds are beginning to question whether it's possible to hold pro-ana sites liable for any harm incurred by those who view them. But is this a battle worth fighting, or will it worsen the problem?
Some of the web discussion outside the pro-ana community regarding whether or not pro-ana sites are legal. It's a natural question for those who aren't familiar with anorexia: "How can this be going on? What do we do about it?"
But others argue that banning pro-ana sites is censorship. They suggest that those who are binge eaters are perfectly free to form their own online communities with no threat of being shut down. So, why shouldn't pro-anorexia sites be given the same freedom?
It's a reasonable question, but I'm not aware of any online communities that give tips on binge eating and encourage the rituals around binge eating as a lifestyle choice. There are "fat friendly" sites and sites that support "big, beautiful women." Yet there isn't encouragement of others to eat more so they can stay that way. There is no competition among binge eaters to see who can be the biggest or who can eat the most. Encouragement in these groups focuses on being okay with readers' current shapes.
Binge eaters generally don't see their choices as triumphant accomplishments, as those in the pro-ana world do. Instead, they feel shame. So there is no desire to describe to others, with pride, just how much they've eaten. Yet this exact dynamic -- competing over who can have the greatest will power and eat the least -- occurs on pro-ana sites all the time.
But if there is clearly harm in pro-anorexia content, does it make sense to try to establish legal liability for that harm? No cases have reached a courtroom yet. There's good reason: Making the link to liability would be difficult.
A chief contributor to possible liability for pro-ana sites is their contribution to self-delusion. Pro-ana sites often try to get around potential liability with disclaimers. For example, a site might say up front (and in bold letters), "WE ARE NOT A PRO-ANA WEBSITE." However, within two clicks there are instructions on how to diet in such a way that there is no choice but to eventually become severely underweight and preoccupied with exercise and food avoidance. Other "tips" from these sites are unquestionably dangerous, asking readers to perform tasks that no health professional would advise them to do.
But it's not hard to believe that people with anorexia really do believe what they're saying -- that they're making "lifestyle choices," and that they're simply stronger than other people. Anorexia involves deep denial of reality, which eventually applies to more than just the disorder itself. Here's an example from a now-defunct website that shows a true lack of awareness about how anorexia works. The writer is attempting to separate those with anorexia from the supposedly much better, more "admirable" group called "rexies":
"If u [sic] want sympathy for your 'disease,' you are anorexic. If you want respect and admiration for your lifestyle of choice, you are a rexie.... Anorexics die. Rexies don't.... This site is for us rexies, who are proud of our accomplishments, and the accomplishments that lie ahead. [W]e will never die."
This reminds me of an alligator eating her own eggs. Those who have anorexia nervosa always want respect and admiration; the term "rexie" does not separate them. To think that a person with anorexia is not proud of herself on some level, even just before death, is to be tragically unaware.
The pride itself is what can draw others into harmful situations (and potentially create liability). It seems that not all disclaimers offer sufficient legal protection when the content in question clearly encourages the exact thing the disclaimer says it doesn't encourage.
The lack of awareness in pro-ana groups is startling; it's also the vulnerable part of their cult-like group behavior. Not being able to see the larger picture can ultimately create careless disregard for readers, which can lead to even greater damage and perhaps even create more liability.
