While I was doing postgrad media studies at Massey, we fledgeling social scientists were repeatedly warned about the dangers of “moral panics” when it came to news media coverage. “Moral panics” go something like this- take one problematic social issue; blow it out of all proportion; get concerned experts (either professionals or self-styled “moral guardians” to argue for social change; achieve disproportionate legislative reform; result, social problem either fades away as a fad, or is magnified severalfold due to counterproductive prohibitionist regime.

With that in mind, I thought I’d turn to two new contenders for the status of “Dark Side of the Web”- namely, pro-anorexia and pro-suicide websites.

While PLWAs, feminist cancer survivors, Deaf rights campaigners and the disability rights movement have politicised and “demedicalised” their physiological “anomalies” and medical conditions to achieve some degree of collective self-determination, this is not possible or indeed, desirable for all medical conditions. For example, take the case of pro-anorexia (”pro-ana”) websites, in which horrifically skeletally thin young women encourage each other to circumvent medical treatment for their eating disorders, and risk eventual death through organ failure due to prolonged self-starvation. At the moment, these websites are oriented toward young straight women, but there has recently been a rise in the reported incidence of anorexia amongst young gay (and even some straight) men. Remember, too, eating disorder services are massively undercapacity in the North Island.

Another worrying trend is the rise of “pro-suicide” websites. These originated in Japan, which has historically had a more lenient attitude toward self-immolation (hara-kiri when one’s honour has been damaged). As with the pro-anorexia websites above, these encourage teenagers at risk to top themselves through sharing suicide techniques, which raises some questions about the legality of such sites. It may well be the case that they are actively “aiding and abetting” suicide, which is an offence within many national criminal codes, and ISPs and web hosting could face liability risks criminal prosecution if English language versions are available.

Fortunately, Microsoft has now refused to list such websites in its search engines, which leads one into the inevitable what-is-to-be-done dilemma. I think industry self-regulation is the answer. I have no doubt that the executives of corporate ISPs are as horrified at the above phenomena as we are, even if a small number of sites are involved,  and I imagine that these websites would certainly violate ‘appropriate use’ codes. Even if Gaynz.Com itself has been the target of overbroad censorware applications in the past, I would have no objection whatsoever if it were used to block access to these websites.

And what about hackers in such situations? Hacking is a criminal offence, but would a jury actually convict someone who crashed pro-anorexia or pro-suicide website, given that in the case of pro-suicide websites, facilitating suicide is itself a criminal activity? I am aware of no such case at present, but it remains an intriguing possibility for future students of Internet law.

(Mind you, I wouldn’t advise it against methamphetamine lab construction advice websites or paedophile networking sites, as you might be interfering with police surveillance and apprehension of the individuals involved, tempting as it might be to mete out justice to these evil creatures).

However, suicide and anorexia nervosa are both indisputably destructive forms of human behaviour. We need more information about how these websites work before adopting any particular strategy to combat them, however.