Source 2

“[A] Pro-Ana argued that the Yahoo sites ‘are not promoting for people to be anorexic! They aren’t sending out fliers or adds (sic) to join these groups, which is what promoting is. These clubs are not making or forcing people join them in being anorexic. The clubs are simply a place for people with anorexia to talk to someone, whether they want to give up anorexia or live with it’….

However, the Pro-Ana cause has not been taken up by Internet public interest and civil libertarian groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, nor the ACLU, who have been champions and supporters of the right to free speech on the Internet (including, in some instances, hate speech).”

 

These excerpts above grabbed me (I’m putting them as one nugget as they support each other and interested me equally). I would use this as part of the counter argument against those who move to shut down the pro-ana websites. The first part is a quote from a pro-ed blogger who states what I would agree with as pretty much true: The sites don’t actively advertise the dangerous content they contain. This is generally true, although there are people who posses certain tendencies that could stumble across these sties and have that spiral into something serious (and I’ll probably get to this general statement in another post). With this, the second portion mentions the freedom of speech take on things (even though the quote tells us these websites haven’t been supported by freedom of speech supporting groups themselves. This is essentially the main counterargument to my first nugget-and an extremely important one to consider as it is a right everyone (in America) has even in cases where the freedom allows for controversial opinions to be voiced.

 

 

The connections this nugget has to my last is that it is a specifically chosen counterargument against the pro-ban side. As they are purposefully opposing, they don’t really share many similarities and the differences are all in the content of arguments they are supporting. As such, they actually end up working together to create the start of the necessary representation of all arguments that I will have to include in my research paper. The inclusion of both arguments hopefully will allow my readers to have an understanding on the ethics vs freedoms stances.

 

 

 

2 comments

  1. Jon Becker November 1, 2015 at 9:54 pm

    Reply

    The link didn’t work for me, but that’s OK…

    I think the second part is really interesting. If EFF and ACLU are not taking up the cause, that says something.

    Though not nearly as extreme, this reminds me of the controversy behind Crossfit (http://www.livestrong.com/article/545200-the-fall-of-fitness/). The Crossfit community is VERY strong and protective and the company itself does a lot of work to keep negative information out of the public’s eye (see e.g. http://spinsucks.com/communication/the-crossfit-pr-nightmare/)

    • M November 1, 2015 at 10:53 pm

      Reply

      I have no idea why that link didn’t work, but I’ll try to fix that. To follow up on the last few posts you have commented on, I’ll accept that you’re right on keeping it a ethics vs legal topic. As I’m not on a side, I’ll be also doing the research on this paper for my sake of choosing a stance which may help me write it out anyways. I read the Crossfit paper and had no idea they were that intense. Kind of interesting to see pretty similar-minded people such as the pro-ana members and the extreme Crossfitters (I’m sure not everyone wants to get a reward sticker for puking from a workout) and how one is widely outwardly popular and the other completely stigmatized. Very cool article!

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *