I think there are very valid arguments both for and against the removal of pro ana sites. pro ana sites ultimately provide a place for anorexics to talk and share ideas on the best way to starve themselves, often to their death. Where ordinarily a particular idea to lose weight and deceive those around them might not occur to an anorexic, these sites mean that many people don't get help with their condition in time, or when they do, are resistant to treatment. For every doctor and family member trying to help the anorexic recover, there are many more people the anorexic has met on a pro ana site, who encourage the anorexic to resist treatment and 'stick to their guns' so to speak. This, surely can't been seen as a good thing, and and is an extremely valid argument for their removal. However, I believe that in the case of 'pro ana' sites, freedom of speech wins. I don't think they should be removed by ISPs. I believe that any restrictions palced on these sites should be done by individual groups/families or organisations, through optional filters. Of course, there's always a way to get around these filters, but I'd rather have them than a total ban. Whilst I don't know anybody with anorexia, I have a cousin who used to have bulimia. She visited these sorts of sites, and after her recovery has said that whilst they 'helped' her to 'stay bulimic', had she not had what she felt at the time, was 'support' from her fellow 'mias', she would have quite happily slit her wrists. The sites kept her alive until doctors and family members realised what was happening, and could intervene. In a twisted sort of a way, they helped to save her life. Though I must say, I don't believe they do this for the majority. And as a medic, they make your job a million times more difficult.

In the United States, speech is protected, no matter how harmful, unless the speech personally offends George Bush. That's the way it should be because George Bush thinks so.

The ISPs can do whatever they want. They are not the government. And there is no such thing as freedom of speech when you are using someone elses service to deliver your views. They own the service and may define it's use any way they see fit. We may not like it but it's the hard truth. As for pro-ana? If your going to allow that, then you also have to allow assisted suicide. ISPs may be able to define their guidelines but they can only have one set for everyone.

ISPs, being private entities, have the right to do business with whomever they choose or choose not to. That's not censorship; it's a mutually consensual decision between private parties. Many ISPs refuse to host sexually explicit or offensive sites. Then again, there are ISPs that promote themselves as advocates of free speech and make no restrictions on the types of content that they will host (provided that the client is willing to pay the service fee, of course). Only when government lays down the law and says, "You are forbidden to express this viewpoint or disseminate this information," does it become censorship, for I no longer have the right to express myself, even if I am willing to pay the costs and engage other consenting adults.

As someone who has had and still struggles with an ED I appreciate the anonymity that comes from discussing my problems or just being able to voice my thoughts with someone who I don't have to be fearsome of reprisal. The sites can also help those that want to simply understand why or what someone thinks about the subject. I think that although some of the contents and suggestions posted on certain sites can be harmful, it is not much worst than what one can find on their own. I can google ways to fast and have a million hits without once entering a pro-ana site. I can go to the local store / turn on a TV and be "inspired" by the thin images that most these sites show. I can go to my local drug store and purchase one of 50 bottles that are aimed at weight loss or just find 1 of many laxatives, the banning of the sites won't stop or cure anyone. It won't make it harder to recover from an ED nor will it prevent anyone from letting an ED run their life. Banning this will only spark others to think of other group of sites that are not suitable for the public. Where does it end?

There is no way to completely block these sites from being viewed. There is a way to get around the filtering and the censors, if they were enforced. Most girls join because they are looking for a fast way to lose weight. These websites do not make these girls anorexic, mentally. Rather, these websites are a breeding ground for ideas of a "us against the world" mentality.

pro-ana aites should definately be banned, i'm all for free speech except when it could be harmful to others!

like pro-cutter, or pro-suicides sites, they would be no worse than fox news.