Why would a legal ruling of liability against a pro-ana site be good? First, it gives an accurate name to the pro-ana phenomenon -- "dangerous." Though many other practices are also dangerous and are not censored in some way, we do have some. Child pornography, for example, is illegal. Some might argue that viewing child porn is a "lifestyle choice" as well, and that those who do should have the rights of any other group.
Laws bring issues into the public eye. The debate could be positive in the long run. Perhaps the two camps could work together to create forums in which there could be support that isn't dangerous.
Viewers separated from their pro-ana communities might turn to healthy sources for genuine support on their own. Amid the vicious competitiveness and infighting among pro-ana readers, there is occasionally a healthy kind of care (though diluted by the site's environment). Those who frequent these sites genuinely believe that literally no one else can provide them with real support. This is clear from many angry blog comments and postings around the web, most of which include statements like, "Don't judge! You can't understand. You couldn't live in our shoes for a day!"
But what if there were actual outlets in which others did care for them unconditionally, even as they sought to restore their bodies to healthy levels? It's not as easily controllable as living in the pro-ana community, so it would be frightening. Some might seek such care, though, if their online communities went away.
If a case ever reaches a court, I'll be rooting for a ruling that the pro-ana site is liable for damage. But if it happens, it will be just the beginning. What the legal community (and law enforcement) may not understand is the sheer tenacity of the pro-eating disorder community. Those with anorexia are already "gifted" with massive strength of will, and they don't like to be denied. It could get very difficult as the pro-ana community digs in and looks for deeper hiding places.
Further, my investigation of pro-ana sites suggests that this group feels intensely persecuted. They've tried to funnel their eating disorders through what they hope is a legitimate channel, and others are telling them it's not right. Perfectionists don't like to hear that. Legal action will reinforce the pressure -- and therefore, the resistance to change.
Plus, there is the danger that, rather than seeking good support in the absence of their negative communities, readers will simply isolate themselves and grow more unhealthy. Ideally, every reader with an identifiable eating issue would receive treatment when a site is shut down. But this is hardly practical (if it's possible at all).
Pro-ana websites may face a crossroads soon. Until now, if a service provider said that a group had to take down a site, the site's creators just took it somewhere else. But if it's possible to have legal consequences for pro-ana sites and the harm they do, it won't be a simple matter of picking up and moving.
More important to consider, though, are the hearts of the women and men who create these sites and/or find them attractive. They've looked elsewhere, and they haven't found anything better. Any kind of intervention that provides real change must offer them something that is truly supportive, even as it separates them from the false support of their negative communities.
Sources:
Byrne N. Pro-ana bracelets: How sick sites are cashing in on anorexics. Accessed at Headline: The National Media Monitoring Programme for Mental Health and Suicide, 2 April 2008.
Martin AK. "Stick a toothbrush down your throat": An analysis of the potential liability of pro-eating disorder web sites. Texas Journal of Women and the Law 14 (2007): 151-178.
Rexia-World, at http://dreamsofthin.websitegalaxy.com (website offline as of April 2004).
Shade LR. Weborexics: The ethical issues surrounding pro-ana websites. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Computer Ethics – Philosophical Enquiry, Boston College, Chestnut Hills, MA, June 25-27, 2003: 107-116.
