Libertarianism and Banning

Yet another news story containing a call for a ban on something:

The Royal College of Psychiatrists said new plans to keep children safe from internet predators should specifically address the rise of so-called pro-ana and pro-mia sites - which advocate anorexia and bulimia.

Right, now, this is a bit of a tough one. Because as a Libertarian, hearing about a call to ban something activates a little red flag in my mind, and I am left very wary about what freedom could now be condemned to the dustbin of history by pressure groups and the government. Yet when I realise is pro-ana and pro-mia websites, I struggle to get too excited. I wouldn't miss them if they were gone, and I can't imagine they are dreadfully pleasant sites.

Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with the call to ban them.

Now, as Libertarian I do support some bans. For example, the ban on child pornography is one I have no issue whatsoever with supporting. So given I am happy with the ban of one type of utterly unpleasant website, why I am not so keen on a ban for another type of unpleasant website?

It comes down to the harm factor. By definition, child pornography has to involve the rape and/or abuse of children in the process of its creation. The same is not true of the pro-ana and pro-mia websites. Furthermore, I have seen no conclusive proof that they actually do a lot of harm to people. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists stops short of making the claim that they lead to anorexia and bulimia:

Professor Ulrike Schmidt said: "Pro-ana and pro-mia websites advocate anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa as a lifestyle choice, rather than as serious mental disorders. Research shows that, even for healthy young women, viewing such websites induces low mood, low self-esteem and increased body dissatisfaction."

Low mood, low self-esteem and increased body-dissatisfaction may be bad things and part of the road towards anorexia and bulimia, but feeling that way does not automatically mean that a person will become anorexic of bulimic after viewing one of these websites. And lots of other things could provoke a similar feeling in a lot of people - like a day in a comprehensive school.

Furthermore, once you ban one thing to save people from eating disorders, you set a precedent for banning other things for the same reason. The article mentions London Fashion Week as "a showcase for "underweight women."" How long until we get a call to ban that? And if we have already banned pro-ana and pro-mia websites, why wouldn't we ban London Fashion Week? And so on and so on, until we all live bland, homogenised existences free of risk but also devoid of a sense of being alive.

More often than not, a call to ban something comes from a well-meaning but naive source. And the decision to ban, more often than not, comes from a desperate attempt by a far from wise politician to be populist. And a ban itself is a clumsy, unwieldy tool that often damages and affects far more than it intended to. As a result, we need to carefully, objectively and unemotionally interrogate each and every ban, with a view to understanding whether it is actually necessary and what unintended consequences it might have.

Banning something is often very appealing, but is seldom actually the answer.