MacInsiders Logo

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If they were Free..? Sport fan Athletics & Recreation 18 03-30-2010 08:15 AM
Obama's Health Care speech fullsmash26 General Discussion 4 07-24-2009 08:29 PM
Going to be Making a Speech About Macinsider.com Today! douglas.C-Sm General Discussion 3 05-07-2009 01:34 PM
"Campus Free Speech in the Age of Terror and Multiculturalism" Chad MacInsiders Announcements 0 11-02-2008 03:34 PM
Obama's Democratic Convention Speech - wow Chad Politics 4 09-09-2008 10:32 AM

Free Speech

 
Old 09-21-2009 at 03:14 PM   #1
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Free Speech
In a CNN news clip, they talk about websites which glamourize Anorexia and other eating disorders and give people "tips" on how to essentially be anorexic. These websites are clearly harmful, but what can or should be done about it?

We all know that one of our Charter Rights is Freedom of Expression (under which falls Freedom of Speech). How far does this go though? Do we have the right to publish material which is blatantly harmful or advocates harmful practices? Do we have the right to ban such materials? Using the pro-anorexia websites as an example, should we have the ability to shut down websites or to block publication of materials which clearly serve no purpose but to harm people?

What do you think about this?
__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University

MDCL likes this.
Old 09-21-2009 at 03:48 PM   #2
MDCL
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 115

Thanked: 10 Times
Liked: 29 Times




I'm gonna charge Taunton a nickel for every post and retire next year.
Old 09-21-2009 at 03:52 PM   #3
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 228 Times
Liked: 473 Times




I definitely think there are things that cross free speech lines but despite the harmfulness of this type of glorification of eating disorders I don't think it does.

People have free will, just b/c you know how to become anorexic or see content glorifying anorexia doesn't mean it will make you anorexic. You make a choice to participate in this kind of lifestyle for whatever reason. People who participate on those kinds of websites really need help and hopefully at some point they will get it and overcome their disorder but the websites should be allowed to exist. They don't violate anyone or harm anyone who is unwilling, if you understand what I mean. No one is forcing you to view this website, become anorexic or participate in this kind of online group.

You state that they advocate harmful behavior which is true but advocating harmful behavior is different than forcing it on someone.

Also I think its slightly incorrect to say pro-anorexia websites serve no purpose but to harm people. As strange as it sounds that is not the purpose of those types of websites. They are a community as much as this board is a community. The people who start and maintain those kinds of websites likely aren't looking to harm people, they are looking to help them. It's twisted logic of course but as I said people suffering from anorexia etc need help.

So no I don't think we should or have a right to shut down this specific type of content on the internet.

That said parents should definitely be monitoring what their younger children/tweens/teens are doing online and make sure their daughters and even sons are not viewing this type of content. Parents obviously can't monitor forever but they can during impressionable stages where young people would get into this type of stuff online without supervision or parental controls.

Basically this is something for parents and care takers to monitor, not the government, or ISPs or what have you.

There is far more harmful content on the internet that should quite possibly be monitored or censored that violates people.

I think free speech ends at the point where you are violating someone else without their consent, and hateful/racist type content. Just for example I believe in laws against holocaust denial, I think free speech should not extend to such a hateful practice.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011

Last edited by sew12 : 09-21-2009 at 03:55 PM.
Old 09-21-2009 at 04:02 PM   #4
MDCL
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 115

Thanked: 10 Times
Liked: 29 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by sew12 View Post
II think free speech ends at the point where you are and... hateful/racist type content..
Unfortunately, hate speech laws have morphed into "the right not to be offended" laws. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not include this provision but the kangaroo-court Human Rights Tribunals across Canada seem to think differently.

Last edited by MDCL : 09-21-2009 at 04:06 PM.

Taunton likes this.
Old 09-21-2009 at 04:04 PM   #5
lorend
MacInsiders VP
MacInsiders Staff
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,615

Thanked: 913 Times
Liked: 507 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by Taunton View Post
In a CNN news clip, they talk about websites which glamourize Anorexia and other eating disorders and give people "tips" on how to essentially be anorexic. These websites are clearly harmful, but what can or should be done about it?
Pro-ana sites have been around for a long, long time. There has also been backlash about them for a long, long time.

CNN must be having a slow news week...where is Kanye hiding nowadays....
__________________
McMaster Combined Honours Cultural Studies & Critical Theory and Anthropology: 2008
McMaster Honours English with a minor in Indigenous Studies: 2010
Carleton University Masters of Arts in Canadian Studies: 2012 (expected)

We are people of this generation, bred in at least modest comfort, housed in universities, looking uncomfortably into the world we inherit. -- Port Huron Statement




temara.brown likes this.
Old 09-21-2009 at 04:59 PM   #6
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 228 Times
Liked: 473 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by lorend View Post
Pro-ana sites have been around for a long, long time. There has also been backlash about them for a long, long time.

CNN must be having a slow news week...where is Kanye hiding nowadays....
This is a good point, but I think Tauton likes stimulating discussion that's all, this is a good way to get on the topic of free speech after we beat the death penalty horse.

MDCL I agree there's a fine line. The things that offend some people shouldn't be classified as hate speech but people manage to take everything out of context and suit it to their purposes.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011

Taunton says thanks to sew12 for this post.
Old 09-21-2009 at 05:20 PM   #7
Taunton
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,592

Thanked: 219 Times
Liked: 598 Times




Yeah, it's not about the pro-anorexia websites per se, it's more about the idea of restricting them or other such controversial materials.
__________________
Ben Taunton
Life Science IV
McMaster University
Old 09-21-2009 at 08:03 PM   #8
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 228 Times
Liked: 473 Times




Yes back on topic. I agree that there are some materials that people use free speech as a means to get out there when they probably shouldn't but I don't see pro-ana sites as crossing a line. They promote a lifestyle that is unhealthy and dangerous but so would for example pro-drug culture, pro-gun rights etc. They have every right to be anorexic and be pro-ana. It is up to parents to monitor impressionable children so they don't fall into these kinds of traps before its too late.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011
Old 09-21-2009 at 09:50 PM   #9
lawleypop
I am Prince Vegeta.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,770

Thanked: 224 Times
Liked: 1,373 Times




I think if we're going to start restricting things, we should start with child pornography. Just to name one.

The idea of banning sites like this is ridiculous. The "problem" is still going to exist. Supression never helped anyone, last I checked.

Why not just destroy the modelling/fashion industry while we're at it? Women who are over 5"7 and 90-100 pounds are glamorized. What's the difference? Oh, right. One's actually accepted by the media and makes people money, while the other one doesn't.
__________________

Mathematically it makes about as much sense as
(pineapple)$$*cucumbe r*.

Old 09-22-2009 at 05:30 AM   #10
sew12
Elite Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,851

Thanked: 228 Times
Liked: 473 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by lawleypop View Post
I think if we're going to start restricting things, we should start with child pornography. Just to name one.

The idea of banning sites like this is ridiculous. The "problem" is still going to exist. Supression never helped anyone, last I checked.

Why not just destroy the modelling/fashion industry while we're at it? Women who are over 5"7 and 90-100 pounds are glamorized. What's the difference? Oh, right. One's actually accepted by the media and makes people money, while the other one doesn't.
All good points.

The first one is things I meant by worse stuff on the internet, but child pornography is obviously something police search and destroy when they can. It would be great if it could be better monitored and the sites were all banned and taken down immediately and people were arrested left right and center. Every few months you hear about a kiddie **** ring being busted but its not nearly enough.

Interesting point about the fashion industry. I do think there is media backlash against models and actresses who are too rail thin and anorexic looking though which is a good start. Of course as long as the industry makes money the people involved in it won't change though.
__________________
-Stefanie Walsh-
4th Year Multimedia 2010-2011
Old 09-22-2009 at 10:37 AM   #11
Mowicz
Elite Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,538

Thanked: 274 Times
Liked: 529 Times




Quote:
Originally Posted by lawleypop View Post
I think if we're going to start restricting things, we should start with child pornography. Just to name one.
They do, that's why you go to jail if you're caught even having looked at it once in your life without reporting it. :p The problem is this isn't quite a relevant analogy: with child ****, people hide it...it isn't a deliberate publication of false or harmful information, like the sites being mentioned. (If anyone deliberately published child **** information, 'advice' or videos, they're trackable, and toast).

Not to mention, you shouldn't have to start anywhere...if something, whatever it may be, is deliberately harmful to others it should be lumped together, regardless of the severity. It's right or wrong here, there aren't varying degrees of wrong...

Quote:
The idea of banning sites like this is ridiculous. The "problem" is still going to exist. Supression never helped anyone, last I checked.
What you mean to say is suppression never helped everyone. The thing is, little websites like this for instance, although they didn't cause anorexia to come into existence, they do reinforce the concept. It's like picking at your scabs...no, the act of picking your scab didn't cause the cut/abrasion, but it does prolong the healing process.

Not to mention, exposure is the whole problem. If someone goes through their life and never sees anything remotely close to a cigarette, it's statistically very unlikely that they'll just up and go "Hey, I'm gonna invent these things and smoke them." If someone is surrounded by thoughts of poor body image they'll turn to anorexia...they don't need disinformation to reinforce those thoughts.


--------------------


To put it another way: YOU may be smart enough to know this causes anorexia, but what about the people who aren't? The people who are duped into this whole problem? Such people can be compared to infants, because of a genuine lack of knowledge/foresight. (It's not necessarily a bad thing, I for instance, am an infant when it comes to say, Shakespeare).

So given they are like infants...suppose I published a website aimed at children (like this website is aimed at the naive), which told children to drown themselves because Santa Claus will bring them gifts or something like that. A naive child would believe such things.

Should action be taken against me?

What about if later, a child actually does drown themselves? Does the situation change?

Last edited by Mowicz : 09-22-2009 at 10:39 AM.

lorend, Taunton like this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 12:14 PM   #12
Comrade B
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 9

Thanked: 0 Times
Liked: Liked 3 Times




For anything in print (internet excluded) that blatantly incites genocidal violence against discrete groups of people, I could understand why its immediate removal is desirable, even though I don't personally agree. (Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Qur'an and a great many other religious texts would technically be eligible, should we apply this standard to texts of antiquity as well; I doubt many would enjoy this.)

If anyone believes in freedom of speech, then that should be one's only reservation, if any; An obstruction beyond that will likely effect a slippery slope, setting precedent after precedent against all speech at even the slightest provocations.

Thankfully in most courts, the great bulk of people that litigate for libel have an impossibly rough time getting the judge on their side.

And let's make sure we don't conflate restriction on the basis of age and censorship.

Old 09-22-2009
adrian
This message has been removed by a moderator. .
Old 09-22-2009 at 12:50 PM   #13
adrian
Elite Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 593

Thanked: 40 Times
Liked: 143 Times




why would they ban sites with such nice pics?
Seriously though, this is censorship pure and simple. I don't see pro smoking sites being taken down.

lawleypop likes this.
Old 09-22-2009 at 12:52 PM   #14
Lois
Elite Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,069

Thanked: 318 Times
Liked: 361 Times




On a related note, how do people feel about sites like fantasyfeeder.com (NSFW)?

It seems like it seems acceptable for people to criticize pro-ana websites, but people are hesitant to talk about people who are excessively overweight. Both lead to major health consequences and in many cases there are mental or genetic factors involved.

adrian, lawleypop like this.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



McMaster University News and Information, Student-run Community, with topics ranging from Student Life, Advice, News, Events, and General Help.
Notice: The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the student(s) who authored the content. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by McMaster University or the MSU (McMaster Students Union). Being a student-run community, all articles and discussion posts on MacInsiders are unofficial and it is therefore always recommended that you visit the official McMaster website for the most accurate up-to-date information.

Copyright © MacInsiders.com All Rights Reserved. No content can be re-used or re-published without permission. MacInsiders is a service of Fullerton Media Inc. | Created by Chad
Originally Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved. | Privacy | Terms