The first time I've said something...
"I do know what I'm talking about; I've read many many of these communities. It's sad, I know it is. But it's not illegal to aspire to be thin. It's not against the ToS to give people bad advice.
LiveJournal does not support girls harming themselves. There is a line where we will suspend a pro-ana community or require removal of an entry. That line is when content is specifically instructing or inciting self-harm. Generalities aren't against the ToS, but specificities may be."
...
???
I don't believe this. I just don't believe this. I've been fairly quiet about this whole thing because I'm not really involved in the whole fanart/Harry Potter part of livejournal. But this latest BS that LJ is feeding us...that just crosses a Line. Because that takes it away from fandom and into a whole 'nother territory.
I read about this in Seventeen a while ago, and I find it interesting and disturbing that the site didn't get sued because "assisted suicide laws...prevent people from deliberately helping others end their lives by supplying them with a method...or physically assisting someone," but "simply informing someone how to kill themselves is another matter."
It's interesting how Livejournal is using the same logic to justify not banning pro-anorexia communities. Very interesting. I know that legal issues can be slippery, but when you ban people for posting art depicting fictional "minors" in sexual situations, which is apparently a slippery subject as to whether it's legal or not, then it seems that you should be a little careful about looking away from situations where real people are getting hurt and possibly dying.
Another note: in recent clarifications LJ stated that "content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment" is prohibited, and that "this portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal." Hmmm.
So would saying "maybe try some diet lipton ice green tea. i swear, i live by that stuff. it makes my symptoms go away " in reply to " i have a HARDCORE hunger headache and im dizzy. haven't eaten in 56 hours and i don't want to eat. besides eating what should i do to lower symptoms," count as advocating self harming behavior?
Recent comments in
lj_biz that make some very good points:
"So, say, if one of these (mostly) teenage girls suddenly drops dead from heart failure due to an eating disorder fostered and encouraged by a peer group hosted by LJ and allowed to stay despite complaints about the community--exactly how many milliseconds do you really think it will take for that girl's parents to sue the living hell out of you?"
"Since when was protecting fictional teenagers more important than protecting real ones?"
"I just . . . really don't understand how you can say that, when I can go to that community (or others) and see post after post of people who are "instructing or inciting self-harm" in the form of self-starvation. Is the problem that all those posts just haven't been reported yet? Or when you say "self-harm," are you only including things that kill immediately, as opposed to exacerbating a lethal disease?"
julia_here asks:
"Do you know what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about pro-ana sites?"
And in case you're wondering, here it is:
"They [AAP and others] found that patients who used pro-eating-disorder sites were sick longer and spent less time doing schoolwork. Patients who used both pro-eating-disorder and pro-recovery sites were admitted to the hospital more times than nonusers.
Many experts find the pro-eating-disorder sites appalling. "It's one of the few times in history that someone has come out and said that a very dangerous illness is a good idea, and here's how to do it," says Christopher Athas, vice president of the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders. "They talk about First Amendment rights. But this is like shouting fire ... These people with these sites claim that they are representing a lifestyle, but they are representing a dangerous illness." Researchers have demonstrated that eating disorders can lead to anxiety, depression, alcoholism, substance abuse, self-mutilation and suicide.
But the pro-ana and pro-mia sites, which the study says are more numerous than pro-recovery sites, tend to gloss over that kind of information-and the fact that people with anorexia are more than 56 times more likely than their peers to commit suicide, says Cynthia Bulik, director of the eating-disorders program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "People who are posting to these sites are accomplices to suicide."
Such sites can interfere with treatment, especially during the first year, when anorexics are at high risk for relapse, says Bulik. "It's a high-risk cue, or a trigger," she says. "I don't think anorexia nervosa is an addiction, but these sites have the ability to pull them into something that's familiar and comfortable. You want your supportive treatment team to be the strong voice in your head."
The study found that eating-disorder patients can get new, often harmful ideas from pro-ana and pro-mia sites. Researchers report that 96 percent of respondents who visited pro-eating-disorder sites said they learned new weight-loss or purging techniques; so did 46 percent of respondents who visited pro-recovery sites. Seven out of 10 users of pro-eating-disorder sites said they used the new techniques they learned; a third used new diet pills, supplements or laxatives. Parents had little knowledge of their teens' visits to these sites.
The pro-eating-disorder sites feed into anorexics' competitive nature, says eating-disorder specialist Dr. David S. Rosen, a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Michigan. "They're constantly trying to be the sickest, the thinnest, the most unhealthy. If you go to a Web site where people are describing their eating habits, their vomiting practices, if you're in the throes of a serious eating disorder, no matter how that information was intended when it was put out there, it may be a challenge to eat less, to take more diet pills, to weight less. That's where the harm is."
Even if the sites featured more bad news about the disease, Rosen isn't so sure the women would care. "I have lots and lots of patients for whom, even though we talk about serious medical consequences and death, it's not a compelling reason for them to want to change," he says. One stereotypical phrase in the profession: "At least I'll be thin in my coffin." "When the brain has been starved as long as it has been, it doesn't work right any more," says Rosen.
..."Fewer than five" of his patients have had a "meaningful recovery aided by a Web site" whereas "a whole lot more than five" have been "substantively worsened" by them, he says. They may be especially harmful for the growing number of younger children with eating disorders. "They're more impressionable, they're less able to think critically about what they're reading and seeing on these Web sites," he says.
In November, the Academy for Eating Disorders issued a warning about the proliferation of sites promoting anorexia and asked government officials and Internet service providers to require warning screens for them. AED president Eric van Furth suggested a statement like "Warning: anorexia nervosa is a potentially deadly illness. The site you are about to enter provides material that may be detrimental to your health." Parents, take note."
(Whole article here.)
I'd say that's pretty clear.
And finally, in Livejournal's own TOS, Section XVI, Article 13:
"Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any governmental entity, group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals. This may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades, and other weapons or incendiary devices."
Hello, hypocrisy. Helllllo.
One final quote, from the beginning article:
"She went to that group, and it was like throwing gasoline on a fire," said Gonzales, whose father died from a long-term illness a week before his daughter killed herself. "I'm all for free speech, but once you start telling young impressionable kids how to kill themselves, that's crossing the line. Someone should be held accountable."
And in this case, the one held accountable could just be LJ. And honestly, if they keep going down this path, they deserve it. The only ones I feel sorry for are the people in those communities who are heading to a very bad place. I had a brush with anorexia and I got out of it, but I can easily see myself in one of those places, and I don't think it would be nearly so easy to get away with people advocating my self-harming behavior.
LiveJournal does not support girls harming themselves. There is a line where we will suspend a pro-ana community or require removal of an entry. That line is when content is specifically instructing or inciting self-harm. Generalities aren't against the ToS, but specificities may be."
...
???
I don't believe this. I just don't believe this. I've been fairly quiet about this whole thing because I'm not really involved in the whole fanart/Harry Potter part of livejournal. But this latest BS that LJ is feeding us...that just crosses a Line. Because that takes it away from fandom and into a whole 'nother territory.
I read about this in Seventeen a while ago, and I find it interesting and disturbing that the site didn't get sued because "assisted suicide laws...prevent people from deliberately helping others end their lives by supplying them with a method...or physically assisting someone," but "simply informing someone how to kill themselves is another matter."
It's interesting how Livejournal is using the same logic to justify not banning pro-anorexia communities. Very interesting. I know that legal issues can be slippery, but when you ban people for posting art depicting fictional "minors" in sexual situations, which is apparently a slippery subject as to whether it's legal or not, then it seems that you should be a little careful about looking away from situations where real people are getting hurt and possibly dying.
Another note: in recent clarifications LJ stated that "content that encourages or advocates hate crimes, the abuse of children in any form, or rape, even if the content itself is not illegal and may be protected by the First Amendment" is prohibited, and that "this portion of the policy reflects the especially reprehensible nature of these activities; users who encourage or advocate these acts, regardless of their motivation, are simply not welcome on LiveJournal." Hmmm.
So would saying "maybe try some diet lipton ice green tea. i swear, i live by that stuff. it makes my symptoms go away " in reply to " i have a HARDCORE hunger headache and im dizzy. haven't eaten in 56 hours and i don't want to eat. besides eating what should i do to lower symptoms," count as advocating self harming behavior?
Recent comments in
lj_biz that make some very good points:
"So, say, if one of these (mostly) teenage girls suddenly drops dead from heart failure due to an eating disorder fostered and encouraged by a peer group hosted by LJ and allowed to stay despite complaints about the community--exactly how many milliseconds do you really think it will take for that girl's parents to sue the living hell out of you?"
"Since when was protecting fictional teenagers more important than protecting real ones?"
"I just . . . really don't understand how you can say that, when I can go to that community (or others) and see post after post of people who are "instructing or inciting self-harm" in the form of self-starvation. Is the problem that all those posts just haven't been reported yet? Or when you say "self-harm," are you only including things that kill immediately, as opposed to exacerbating a lethal disease?"
julia_here asks:
"Do you know what the American Academy of Pediatrics says about pro-ana sites?"
And in case you're wondering, here it is:
"They [AAP and others] found that patients who used pro-eating-disorder sites were sick longer and spent less time doing schoolwork. Patients who used both pro-eating-disorder and pro-recovery sites were admitted to the hospital more times than nonusers.
Many experts find the pro-eating-disorder sites appalling. "It's one of the few times in history that someone has come out and said that a very dangerous illness is a good idea, and here's how to do it," says Christopher Athas, vice president of the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders. "They talk about First Amendment rights. But this is like shouting fire ... These people with these sites claim that they are representing a lifestyle, but they are representing a dangerous illness." Researchers have demonstrated that eating disorders can lead to anxiety, depression, alcoholism, substance abuse, self-mutilation and suicide.
But the pro-ana and pro-mia sites, which the study says are more numerous than pro-recovery sites, tend to gloss over that kind of information-and the fact that people with anorexia are more than 56 times more likely than their peers to commit suicide, says Cynthia Bulik, director of the eating-disorders program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "People who are posting to these sites are accomplices to suicide."
Such sites can interfere with treatment, especially during the first year, when anorexics are at high risk for relapse, says Bulik. "It's a high-risk cue, or a trigger," she says. "I don't think anorexia nervosa is an addiction, but these sites have the ability to pull them into something that's familiar and comfortable. You want your supportive treatment team to be the strong voice in your head."
The study found that eating-disorder patients can get new, often harmful ideas from pro-ana and pro-mia sites. Researchers report that 96 percent of respondents who visited pro-eating-disorder sites said they learned new weight-loss or purging techniques; so did 46 percent of respondents who visited pro-recovery sites. Seven out of 10 users of pro-eating-disorder sites said they used the new techniques they learned; a third used new diet pills, supplements or laxatives. Parents had little knowledge of their teens' visits to these sites.
The pro-eating-disorder sites feed into anorexics' competitive nature, says eating-disorder specialist Dr. David S. Rosen, a professor of pediatrics and internal medicine at the University of Michigan. "They're constantly trying to be the sickest, the thinnest, the most unhealthy. If you go to a Web site where people are describing their eating habits, their vomiting practices, if you're in the throes of a serious eating disorder, no matter how that information was intended when it was put out there, it may be a challenge to eat less, to take more diet pills, to weight less. That's where the harm is."
Even if the sites featured more bad news about the disease, Rosen isn't so sure the women would care. "I have lots and lots of patients for whom, even though we talk about serious medical consequences and death, it's not a compelling reason for them to want to change," he says. One stereotypical phrase in the profession: "At least I'll be thin in my coffin." "When the brain has been starved as long as it has been, it doesn't work right any more," says Rosen.
..."Fewer than five" of his patients have had a "meaningful recovery aided by a Web site" whereas "a whole lot more than five" have been "substantively worsened" by them, he says. They may be especially harmful for the growing number of younger children with eating disorders. "They're more impressionable, they're less able to think critically about what they're reading and seeing on these Web sites," he says.
In November, the Academy for Eating Disorders issued a warning about the proliferation of sites promoting anorexia and asked government officials and Internet service providers to require warning screens for them. AED president Eric van Furth suggested a statement like "Warning: anorexia nervosa is a potentially deadly illness. The site you are about to enter provides material that may be detrimental to your health." Parents, take note."
(Whole article here.)
I'd say that's pretty clear.
And finally, in Livejournal's own TOS, Section XVI, Article 13:
"Promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any governmental entity, group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals. This may include, but is not limited to, providing instructions on how to assemble bombs, grenades, and other weapons or incendiary devices."
Hello, hypocrisy. Helllllo.
One final quote, from the beginning article:
"She went to that group, and it was like throwing gasoline on a fire," said Gonzales, whose father died from a long-term illness a week before his daughter killed herself. "I'm all for free speech, but once you start telling young impressionable kids how to kill themselves, that's crossing the line. Someone should be held accountable."
And in this case, the one held accountable could just be LJ. And honestly, if they keep going down this path, they deserve it. The only ones I feel sorry for are the people in those communities who are heading to a very bad place. I had a brush with anorexia and I got out of it, but I can easily see myself in one of those places, and I don't think it would be nearly so easy to get away with people advocating my self-harming behavior.