In the S.A.F.E. office, an interesting discussion arose as what to do with posts that contain graphic descriptions of self injurious behaviors. Should we censor them or let them stand? The lines were drawn; more were for censoring then not. I for one detest most, if not all attempts at censorship. Yet, as many of you know, S.A.F.E Alternatives’ philosophy, which I co-developed, asks our clients to refrain from describing S.I. acts amongst each other.
S.A.F.E. philosophy parted early on from the 12 step model of treatment which focuses on the need to tell and retell one’s story as a constant reminder of how self-destructive behaviors have negatively impacted one’s life. S.A.F.E on the other hand emphasizes the need to understand the issues that led to those behaviors while learning to tolerate and accept ones internal feelings and external environment.
S.A.F.E views self injurious behavior as a choice one makes to rid oneself of
unwanted feelings and/ or thoughts that stem from unresolved issues. We believe that talking about the specific incident of self-injury often serves as a distraction from identifying and exploring the underlying issues. S.A.F.E. clients would often ask the question “If I can’t speak about my self-injury, what am I supposed to talk about?” to which I would respond, “Bingo, welcome to therapy!”
As many of you may know, there are S.I. web sites that actually support and promote self-injury. Others offer simple substitute like solutions that keep the focus on the behavior rather than the reasons behind the behavior. And then there are sites such as NoFEAR-S.A.F.E._Approved at yahoogroups.com that do not tolerate any graphic description of self-injury in an effort to allow their members to enjoy a “graphic free/trigger free zone?”.
I have given a lot of thought to this dilemma and have a couple of ideas that may allow S.A.F.E.’s philosophy to remain pure without having to resort to censorship. However, I want your feedback first; after all, this blog is for you. Our goal is to collaborate in an effort to make this site the place to get healthy, helpful support. So…… let the dialog begin! Karen
I help moderate chats for a support group for people who have survived sexual assault and sexual abuse ( http://www.pandys.org ). Although I do not moderate the self-injury section, any post that says anything beyond a very vague description of self-harm is edited. There are some more graphic terms used than what was allowed in SAFE, however they are still very vague. Some posts are ultimately deleted because they are too triggery. In chat we the same rule, people can talk about the underlying issues and triggers but we do not permit talking about how you self-injure, where, how often, how badly, etc, etc.
I would not be involved with any forum or support community that does not have some sort of censorship to keep the community safe. If people want to express themselves more freely there are blogs and websites and such things.
This is such an interesting issue… it really got me thinking because in my day to day life I advocate for freedom of speech. I have always been inspired by former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ posture that the test of truth is its acceptance in the (uncensored) marketplace of ideas. His theory of the 1st Amendment being that as opposed to censorship there should be more speech with which any truth may be compared.
But with regards to the issue of graphic descriptions of self injury… My first thought was absolutely for censorship. I find descriptions of self injurious acts triggering. I do not use journaling or logging as one of my primary alternatives to self injury because, for me, focusing on the details of the act can be destructive. I have learned from being in the S.A.F.E. program that everyone’s alternatives are different and for me the best alternatives I came up with were tailored to my own needs. When I have an impulse my primary goal is to distract and then when the urge has passed I log and journal.
Also, I agree very much with idea that describing the actual act of self injury can be distracting. I believe that the nature of the act can hold some symbolism. But, I find it more constructive to focus on the events that led up to the impulse to self injure, the feelings surrounding the impulse, alternatives to the act, etc.
I wonder if some kind of compromise can be reached… whether posts that contain graphic descriptions of self injury can be labeled so that readers have fair warning? Maybe a standard can be developed for the labeling process so that writers on the blog will be aware that if their post contains certain material it will be labeled? So not complete censorship, but a system that leaves the reader with the power to choose whether or not to read a post. I tend to read the blog at night when I am alone in my apartment and I might defer reading a potentially triggering segment to a different time.
In the end, the conclusion I came to is that triggers are everywhere. I am faced with triggers almost everyday and I can’t predict when and where they will occur. (I can’t predict the future, as much as I like to think I can. As my friends from the S.A.F.E. program know!). So, yes, reading this blog may be triggering, and it is my responsibility and my choice to use my alternatives if I have an impulse after reading it and to determine whether reading the blog is a healthy, productive experience for me.
Hey Debbie, maybe you really CAN predict the future! Haha!
Anyways, I was going to suggest something similar, like labeling particular posts as triggering. I was a member of an eating disorder blog for awhile and participants were asked to preface triggering info with several *. Several in a column serve to block the words from appearing on the screen unless the reader scrolls down. So for example I would say, ok, now I’m going to write some triggering info and then put
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
and then write what I needed to. I think that would just be common courtesy on a board such as this. I too find descriptions or even words other than “self-harm” or “self-injury” to be very triggering, so I would definately appreciate some sort of solution.
What we do is our choice! I would not inspire someone else to enter into the same dark hole that has been my home for over 24 years of my life nor do I want someone else’s descriptive words. I just need to know people like me exist, we are not freaks, we who have been a SAFE graduate support one another by knowing we care. Self abuse finally ends every time we choose to write, talk to a therapist, or come here to SAFE. Please, lets do not bring triggering typed words to a place that gave hope to those of us who have said help me! I need a SAFE Group weekend gathering to renew my pledge, I do not live alone…I need help!
Hello, All! A special shout out to Debbie and Ashley and the SAFE staff in Denton, TX! I miss you all. As for the cencorship dilemma, I would like to second the opinions of both Ashley and Debbie. Has anyone figured out how to look at profiles? I know that this is probably not the place (thread) to be talking about it, but I can’t find any help anywhere on the site. Thanks to all!
One of the most constructive things at SAFE was the using of the term “self injury” rather than the description of a specific thought or act. If you are concerned with the catharsis of the individual needing to express in detail their impulsive response then i would direct them to a personal log rather than to an open forum. if the individual feels the need to share explicit information than perhaps there is an e-mail link that could be set up directed towards karen or tracy or someone capable of dealing with the information in a non-triggering way… this link would contain a disclaimer, of course but could be a possible working senario for a trial period?
Hey All, I’m the owner of NoFEAR-SAFE_Approved and for us censorship has been difficult at times. We used to have people put “may trigger” in the subject line, but we found that there were way to many people doing that and it started to get rough for the people on the list and also for the moderators. So what we had to do was completely get rid of the “may trigger” in the subject line. We now moderate all new people that come to the yahoogroup. That is a lot of work for those of us who run the group, but well worth it. Under moderation we can censor for the No Trigger Policy that we have which came from the SAFE Alternatives program. Also under moderation we can coach people that have no idea what a “No Trigger Policy” is. I think we have a good thing going and I believe that others think so too by looking at the number of people that join and post in this group. So for me I think that there is a time and place one can talk about triggers, but in a group setting I don’t think it’s wise because there are so many fragile people. But, I also go by all that I have learned from going to SAFE. So….that is what I have to say.
i am for censorship.. it’s a difficult issue.. because some people need to talk about how they do things.. to get it out.. but to other people that are reading and me myself being an SI. i find it triggerss feelings in me. to see stuff like that or here someone say how graphically how they do it..
i think it is ok for some people but we have to remember that not everyone has the same triggers an not everyone may be as far along in the healing process as you are. i hope my input helps.. it’s difficult.. to say.