One extreme example that is really pushing the limits of free speech on the internet is the development of what is called “pro-ana” or “pro-mia” websites. These are websites that promote anorexia or Bullemia, which can be life threatening eating disorders. This is a very dangerous trend and so far there are known to be 500 in existence (sixwise.com). To me this is the most extreme form of free speech. This is considered a mental illness in the medical community, much like alcoholism, yet these websites promote this behavior. This is extremely dangerous for people that are in these conditions, and prevent them from living a healthy life. Should these websites be protected by free speech laws? If we consider Potters Box (Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p474), and the advertising that is used on these websites, we would think not. The “thinspiration” that is occurring uses shock value and promotes detrimental lifestyles.
According to Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p477), “Society's welfare is paramount, more important than individual careers or individual rights.” If this is the case, these types of websites harm society rather than help it. While the few members that belong to them might find comfort, the detriment to young, impressionable girls or people that might otherwise seek treatment outweighs the use of free speech.
According to Potter's Box ( Straubhaar, LaRose and Davenport (2010 p476), these websites are considered unethical. The first stage, you define or clarify the facts of the situation. On these websites the facts are obscured, and dangers are minimalist. The second stage, you determine choice that will promote the message, such as shock value, the disturbingly thin models are unrealistic and dangerous goals that are promoted on this website. The third quadrant, we analyze if the good of society is more important than the bad taste of the message, we certainly do not find that the case with these cites. The fourth quadrant, is the website more concerned with it's own goal or that of shock value. These websites fail at every turn, and when analyzed by Potter's Box are unethical. This really asks the question of how far can free speech go?
I view this a a detriment to free speech, but where is the line? If these were illegal, what about porn, religious sites, etc? While most people find these types of websites disgusting, they are optional. There is a disclaimer that you must click acknowledging that the images on the website may be harmful, before you can view the site. You do not have to click on it, and in fact because of the social stigma, you have to sight them out because they are hard to find. I believe this is one of the most extreme examples of free speech on the internet today, just because of the content that actually promotes and unhealthy and dangerous illness. Do you agree?
I view this a a detriment to free speech, but where is the line? If these were illegal, what about porn, religious sites, etc? While most people find these types of websites disgusting, they are optional. There is a disclaimer that you must click acknowledging that the images on the website may be harmful, before you can view the site. You do not have to click on it, and in fact because of the social stigma, you have to sight them out because they are hard to find. I believe this is one of the most extreme examples of free speech on the internet today, just because of the content that actually promotes and unhealthy and dangerous illness. Do you agree?
Word Count: 486
No comments:
Post a Comment