The internet is an increasingly popular form of new communication technology because of the variety and amount of information it provides, and the ease with which it is gained. Due to this, teenagers and anyone else can now access pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia websites; sites that people suffering from these eating disorders can visit to encourage and support each other in their quest for thinness. This is an example of why there is now a need for censorship on the internet; but who should be responsible for this? This essay argues that certain internet sites with inappropriate material like these should be blocked, however that prompts debate over what the implications of internet censorship would mean for freedom of speech and thought.
In Australia, laws have been enforced regarding the issue of internet censorship, in the form of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 (Jackson, James & Tapley 1999). This Bill states that it is the responsibility of the Internet Service Provider, or ISP, (the provider of internet access) and Internet Content Host, or ICH (who host internet content for others without supplying an internet connection). The Bill also notes that content providers are not free from regulation, but that they are dealt with under State and Territory Legislation. This legislation is an admission that there is a need for some form of internet censorship, and that need has been put into practice.
Also decided in the Bill is what is classed as ‘prohibited content’, and should not be available on Australian internet sites. Prohibited content means content that has been classified under the guidelines established with the Commonwealth Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 as either R, X or RC. R refers to ‘information deemed likely to be disturbing or harmful to persons under 18 years’, X is ‘non-violent sexually explicit material involving consenting adults’, and RC stands for ‘refused classification’(2006c). These classifications prove that there is material on the internet that should be restricted.
The establishment of this Bill has prompted debate over issues of freedom of speech and freedom of thought. That is, a person’s right to say or write what they want, and the ability to be able to access information and views that will allow a person to form their own opinions. Strauss (1976 p. 23) asserts that without freedom of thought, “the only kind of intellectual independence of which many people are capable is destroyed, and that is the only freedom of thought which is of political importance.” Organisations such as Electronic Frontiers Australia (2006c) have formed because they share a belief in online rights and freedom, and it is certainly arguable that censorship interrupts freedom of speech.
However this causes issues because of the cost, and of the cost to whom, people are prepared to fight for their right to free speech. Electronic Frontiers Australia suggests censoring alternatives such as filtering products (2006c). An example of one of these services is Net Nanny (2007b). Net Nanny is used by parents to monitor what their children are viewing on the internet. It blocks objectionable web content and sends an e-mail to parents if their children try and access objectionable websites. There are other filter services like this, but they create issues of over-generalising. For example, if sites containing the word breast are blocked, information about breast cancer cannot be researched (Culture and Recreation). Whilst internet censorship becomes a complicated matter due to personal freedoms, it is generally recognized that some internet content needs to be blocked, with either filters or by law.
Pro-anorexia websites are not, despite their disturbing and highly controversial features, prevented or censored by the Bill and its Classification Scheme. The problem with these websites is that because the conversations are occurring in a surrounding where everyone is thinking alike, that line of thought and the behaviour that goes with it is normalized. Anna Burke (Federal Member for Chisholm) asked Philip Ruddock (Attorney-General) to review the Classification Scheme in regards to the pro-anorexia websites, but his response was that the scheme “does not prevent the exploration of strong themes or the expression of controversial views (2006d).” However, the R classification seems fitting to apply to these sites, as content that could be harmful to persons under 18 years, but also to people in general.
A pilot study was featured in a European Eating Disorders Review to examine the impacts on young women viewing pro-anorexia websites (Bardone-Cone & Cass 2006). The women completed questionnaires to examine their moods and cognitions before and after viewing these websites. Overall, preliminary data showed that seeing a pro-anorexia website had “negative affective and cognitive effects on young women (Bardone-Cone & Cass 2006).” This does not prove that anyone who views a pro-anorexia website could develop an eating disorder purely due to the content on the website. However, it makes evident that these websites can encourage people to feel negatively about themselves. A body-conscious teenager is particularly susceptible to being negatively affected by this, shown in a study by Cavanaugh and Nemeroff (1999) cited in Peterson (2004, p. 364). It showed that 40% of girls, some as young as six, preferred thinner bodies than their own, and 80% of pre-adolescent and young adolescent girls had dieted before or were currently dieting. This highlights the fragile state of young minds in relation to physical appearance and shows that because anyone who sees one of these websites is at risk of being negatively affected, they should be censored.
The implication of these sites not being classed as prohibited content is that anyone can at any time go on the internet and easily locate a pro-anorexia or pro-bulimia website, read weblogs, messages written by sufferers to other sufferers encouraging their lifestyles and read a list of recommended exercises and low-calorie foods. The website ‘Pro-Ana Nation’(2007c) is an example. Before entering the site, a Microsoft Internet Explorer warning is seen, reading “You must be at least 18 years old to enter this website.” There is no possible way to know if the person who clicked ‘OK’ and was allowed entry into the site was in fact 18. A warning reading that you must be at least 18 years old to view the content of the website reinforces the possibility of the R classification being applied to these sites. However, without any form of restriction in regards to censorship, these sites can be freely viewed and could be causing a number of problems for anyone who views them; another reason why censorship is needed.
Pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia websites should be censored. Although it causes issues for freedom of speech and thought, filter products often do not provide enough advantages to outweigh their disadvantages, and therefore may not cause people to actually purchase them. Censorship with the Classification Scheme is the most effective way to ensure less vulnerable people view these sites. Therefore, pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia websites should be grouped in a restricted website category.
REFERENCES:
List of References
1. Beresin, Eugene V. & Derenne, Jennifer L. (2006a) Body Image, Media, and Eating Disorder http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1043848461&sid=2&Fmt=3&clientld=13713&RQT=309&VName=PQD May/June (accessed 26 April 2007)
2. Bardone-Cone, Anna M. & Cass, Kamila M. (2006b) Investigating the Impact of Pro-Anorexia Websites: A Pilot Study http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1125238721&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientld=13713&RQT=309&VName=PQD July/August (accessed 26 April 2007)
3. Ernst, Morris Leopold (1964) Censorship: The Search for the Obscene The Macmillan Company, New York
4. Harrison, John & Hirst, Martin (2007a) communication and new media from broadcast to narrowcast Oxford University Press, Victoria
5. How did the Internet start? Internet Development Guide 2. http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/resources/guides/g2/s2.htm (accessed 7 May 2007)
6. Internet Censorship Laws in Australia (2006c) http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html March (accessed 23 April 2007)
7. Jackson, Kim, James, Matthew & Tapley, Mark (1999) Bills Digest No. 179 1998-99 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999 http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1998-99/99bd179.htm (accessed 23 April 2007)
8. Need For Action Against Pro-anorexia Websites (2006d) http://www.alp.org.au/media/1206/ms134.php (accessed 23 April 2007)
9. ‘Net Nanny Parental Controls from ContentWatch’ http://www.netnanny.com/ (accessed 7 May 2007)
10. Net Nanny Review 2007 (2007b)http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/netnanny-review.html (accessed 27 April 2007)
11. Peterson, Candida (2004) Looking Forward through the Lifespan Developmental Psychology 4th Edition Pearson Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest
12. Pro-Ana Nation (2007c) http://www.pro-ana-nation.com/v1/index.php (accessed 23 April 2007)
13. Strauss, Leo (1976) Persecution and the Art of Wrting Greenwood Press, Connecticut
14. Tribe, David (1973) Questions of Censorship George Allen & Unwin LTD, London
Legislation
1. Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999
2. Commonwealth Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment