The Orbis

The U.S. Constitution is an amazing masterpiece of liberal democracy. Outlined in that one document is the entire moral and political structure of our country; within its pages are preserved all the values and human rights we hold so dearly. However, the Constitution isn't perfect, and I would argue that there are certain situations that can't be easily defined as right or wrong within its framework. Pro-eating disorder Web sites are a perfect example of this dilemma. They must be censored completely from the Internet as soon as possible, regardless of the First Amendment's promise of freedom of speech.

Very few pro-eating disorder Web sites can be found online today, but the ones that are still in operation are extremely disturbing. They include forums where young women, and occasionally young men, can post messages telling how much they ate on a particular day, whether they lost or gained weight and their personal tips for weight loss. In addition, one site I visited had hundreds of images of "forbidden" foods, a smorgasbord that allows a person suffering from an eating disorder to "get his or her fill" of all the foods his or her body is craving -- without the calories.

On the surface, these sites have a feeling of community, however twisted such a society may be.

However, eating disorders are really about isolation. The pressures of everyday life often overwhelm those who are suffering from these diseases. They numb themselves by focusing exclusively on food, viewing it as the one aspect of their lives over which they can still exercise some control.

Allowing pro-eating disorder Web sites to continue is like enabling drug dealers to sell cocaine and heroine online unpunished. It's exactly the same thing: both drug abuse and food restriction are addictive behaviors. Web sites advising victims of eating disorders how to lose weight and displaying pictures that might trigger them to restrict their food intake are essentially handing them the tools they need to fuel their addictions.

Eating disorders are terminal illnesses; if the victim does not find help and put an end to his or her patterns of destructive behavior, he or she will die. The body can take only so much punishment. Thus, there are certain instances in which we should look critically at our Constitution and question how well it applies to the problem at hand.

While our founding fathers demonstrated an amazing amount of foresight, I doubt they ever intended any of their mandates to promote human suffering.

Article Tools