So, Tumblr, a community that I don’t even belong to, announced today that they were no longer going to host blogs that “advocate self harm.” Since my post will already be long enough, I encourage you to check out the full post and policy here.

This policy kind of set me off, so I used my lunch break to fight back. I am really pleased with my response, so I wanted to share it.

AS A NOTE: I am not attempting to take a stance on the hot-button issues listed here. In presenting a viewpoint, I am merely attempting to say that this is a respected and/or prevalent opinion in this debate. I tried to be as value-neutral as I could here, and any resemblance to an opinion is entirely coincidental.

Anyway, my pwnage of Tumblr:

To whom it may concern,

I am not an active member of Tumblr, but I want to write to you today with a deep concern about your new content policy. I received your notification on this matter via a friend at work, and I just had to respond.

You state in your policy that you seek to eliminate blogs that actively promote and glorify self-harm. The examples you cite include a number of eating disorders such has anorexia and bulimia. However, Tumblr leaves out one of the most common undiagnosed eating disorders in the United States: compulsive overeating. As CO is something that I have struggled with, it disturbs me to have it left out of the “laundry list” of eating disorders you presented in your policy. The fact that it is left out, I think, illustrates one of the deep flaws in this policy, which I outline below.

I would like to see Tumblr strike the policy all together. I want to work within the frame of compulsive overeating to show how the policy is arbitrary and unjustified, how it is harmful to those it seeks to help, and finally, how it is a violation of Tumblr’s principles of free expression.

Tumblr’s new content policy is harmful for the following reasons:

1. Tumblr has drawn an arbitrary line between what constitutes self-harm and what does not.

If one considers compulsive overeating, obesity and the fat acceptance movement, there is much overlap. Plethoras of studies show that obesity is harmful to the body, yet this community of people choose to “glorify” being fat. I accept this choice for them and their lives, but one could reasonably argue that those people are being just as self-destructive as anorexics and bulimics. In fact, people argue this all the time. There is reasonable debate on fat acceptance just as there is debate on calorie restriction.

Under what justification has Tumblr chosen to ban non-eating “self-harm” blogs, but not to ban over-eating “self-harm” blogs? There is no objective difference that I can see.

I would also ask: if one unilaterally rejects self-harm, how then can Tumblr accept blogs on BDSM, particularly those that “glorify” masochism? BDSM is no less controversial than cutting, anorexia, or bulimia. I was once referred for psychiatric evaluation when I said I enjoyed being whipped. Because I consent to this, it is “self-harm.”

By what objective standards does Tumblr differentiate between BDSM and cutting in order to say that one is acceptable material and the other is not? Again, I find no non-arbitaray distinction between these two.

2. By banning “self-harm blogs,” Tumblr unwittingly propagates the problem it wishes to solve.

John Stuart Mill famously argues in On Liberty that censorship has only two possible end results: 1) either the person you are censoring is right and by censoring them you keep people from knowing the truth or 2) the person you are censoring is wrong, and you are forcing them underground in which they will never be exposed to truer alternatives.

Since I believe that Tumblr is not willing to engage with the idea that calorie restricters might be correct in their values, I will focus on the latter of those two options.

Keeping self-harming people from speaking on your forum deprives them of a necessary venue through which they can attain help. If Tumblr truly believes that calorie restrictors and physical mutilators need help, then allowing them to write on Tumblr is one of many crucial ways that their ideas can be challenged and they can be convinced to seek professional assistance. Blogging is inherently interactive, and people challenging those beliefs is a great way for someone to have their mind changed.

If Tumblr bans this content, then they are cutting off the people who they wish to help from a necessary resource to their recovery: other people.

3. Tumblr contradicts itself when it says that they are “deeply committed to supporting and defending our users’ freedom of speech” while enforcing this policy.

This new content policy is the essence of censorship. While the examples of spam and identity theft constitute harm to others, “self-harm” blogs do not. Thus, when Tumblr eliminates this speech, Tumblr violates the very principles of free speech itself. Tumblr has pointed a finger at certain types of speech and has said “these things are unacceptable to us — they are banned.” That, Tumblr, does not constitute a deep commitment to freedom of speech. It constitutes limited speech — speech that is “free” so long as it conforms with your values.

Indeed, Tumblr says that that “[o]nline dialogue about these acts and conditions is incredibly important,” yet Tumblr is decisively cutting off an essential part of that debate. There cannot be true dialogue about these important issues when Tumblr mercilessly hacks off one side of the debate. Its commitment to providing a forum for discussion becomes null and void with the isolation of certain values and elimination of their presence within your sphere.

This policy is arbitrary. It is damaging to those who might need help, and finally, it is in direct violation with your stated beliefs about speech and expression. This policy is fundamentally flawed by all the terms you have set for yourself, and it should not be implemented.

Thank you,

Gina Luttrell”Be a philosopher, but amidst your philosophy, be still a man.” — David Hume.