Social Media and Litigation: An Untrod, Thorny Path

From the pro-anorexia forums which inflamed public opinion during the early 21st century, to the current focus on fostering a positive body image amongst the youth of the day, social media and body image have long been examined in light of the other. This has culminated in a recent bill proposed by Conservative MP and member of the Health and Social Care Committee, Dr Luke Evans, which proposes that all ‘altered’ photos posted by celebrities with over 30,000 followers be tagged. A bill along very similar lines having been enacted in France already, it means non-compliers would be forced to apologize or pay a fine. 

This raises three central questions, all of which interlink with the main problems with body image issues in the UK. The first is whether this is actually legal: to restrict freedom of expression, the proposing party would need to prove that altered photos are a threat to ‘health and morals,’ which is difficult given the current scarcity of research. The second question is that of utility- currently, while it is estimated that up to 4 million people in the UK currently struggle with an eating disorder, this bill seems to attempt to treat a multifaceted and complex problem with a stopgap solution, instead of treating other root causes. The third problem is the most troubling. This bill will be near-unenforceable. It has not been costed appropriately, and it remains unclear as to whether this will affect the individuals who alter their photos, or social media companies.

First, the legality of this bill is circumspect. Laws on free speech have long been expanded to include images, and the attempt to assert power over what many believe to be a free expression of a personal body image veers on the verge of authoritarianism. Currently, United Kingdom Law only limits the freedom of expression when it is an express threat to ‘health or morals’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ A valid and well-reasoned compulsion to pass this bill would certainly have to be proven. Currently, there is not enough evidence to prove a link between poor body image and altered photos. This means that unlike, for example, the evidence on the substantive link between cigarettes and cancer, the connection between altered photos on social media and body image issues has not been strongly proved. Given that we already have laws which govern false advertising, such as the CAP Code, which affirms that advertising must be honestly depicted, especially when aimed at children. Given that ‘influencers’ often advertise products, a direct misrepresentation of their effects can be utilized to prevent editing, in the case of diet products and clothing could be flagged as false advertising. Thus, the necessity of the matter can be questioned.

Second, the issue of utility. While there is a link between body image problems and certain groups and posts on social media, not enough research has been done on the subject to suggest that there would be a statistically significant increase on wellbeing amongst vulnerable teenagers. The study upon which Dr Evans bases his bill on is flawed (The Girls’ Attitudes Survey, 2019). First, the sample size is small- only measuring 2,000 women and girls does not present a large enough sample size to measure the attitudes of an entire population. The second problem is that it does not actively highlight the problem. While it does suggest that nearly 70% of girls use filters to make themselves look better online, this does not, in itself, indicate that there is a problematic issue with body image. Likewise, the study utilizes ‘bad faith’ statistics. Comparing the PR report to the actual data suggests that they have discarded those who do not post on social media. This is a shaky foundation for the bill, as poor statistical methods invite poor conclusions.

However, there is plenty of research which substantiates a qualitative/quantitative analysis of possible harm caused by the media for the perception of body image issues amongst young people. Multiple studies have correlated an increased amount of time spent on Facebook and Instagram with a decreased sense of self-worth and a more critical attitude towards their bodies. However, the root problem here is not with Facebook and Instagram themselves, it is with how we have taught children, and teenagers to view themselves regarding the bodies of others, including a lack of education in mental health issues.

However, the chief concern with this bill is that it has not been reviewed yet. While the French bill has seen some success, its main difference is that it has not targeted social media so directly, and thus does not provide an accurate parallel to this bill. The first issue is that there is a lack of clarity about who it will apply to. While this law may apply to many British influencers, there is some confusion as to whether it could affect influencers from other countries. This presents a legal dilemma, as the efficacy of British law on foreign persons and foreign companies is, at best, circumspect.  Plus, it is not yet known  how much this will cost to enforce. While there is some data on the French bill, it targets advertisers and fashion, we can see even weightier costs in the future, given that over 60% of Instagram accounts have over 10,000 followers, they may not adhere to this law as planned, leading to the increased cost to prosecute. Furthermore, given that Dr Evans wants no more than an apology, this would be a fruitless endeavour due to the lack of recompense for the effort put into enacting and enforcing this law. Thus, while this law is good in theory, its practical flaws outweigh its theoretical benefits.

Overall, while this bill does have some merit, it is not the right way to go about fixing the flawed perception we have of our bodies. The main flaw with this bill is that there are relatively few studies which support it, and no way to fully understand the cost based on the information released. However, this bill is first, difficult legally, due to its possible violation of the 1998 Human Rights Act, second, based on a heavily criticisable study, and third, unenforceable without expenditure. There are other, better options than simply legislating against it. This can be seen in a single policy- encouraging a healthier view of bodies, nutrition, and fitness from an early age, including much better mental health policies in schools. This would both help body image issues and help people to make positive steps towards mental health and physical fitness, whereas this bill is at best a stopgap measure with no real promise of change.