[QUOTE=doggin94it;2651061]I think there should be only one form of imposed censorship - no reporting any material that endangers an active operation by giving away strategically important information (such as locations or objectives of troop movements) - and one of self imposed restraint (not publishing images of recognizable dead bodies, not publishing names of the dead before relatives are notified, etc.)
Other than that, none at all.[/QUOTE]
Okay. I don't hate this, but I see a possible flaw of idealism and I want to show you a possible consequence and see if you're still okay with it.
So I'm a photographer over there. I have a self-interest in getting my work published, because it could mean a lot of money and a better life for my family. Oh, geez, there's an American serviceman. His skull has actually been cleaved in two, and he's been mutilated. A shot with full facial clarity will get me on Newsweek, and they will publish it because it will sell papers and get publicity. I have to do it, right? Like, I'd love to be idealistic, but Jesus, it's my family, and what could be so wrong about showing reality? He was alive, now he's dead, so why not show the world?
Basically, I just feel that a limit of self-imposed restraint is extremely likely to result in images that are beyond shocking (because maybe we all deserve to be shocked once in a while) but that become disrespectful. Or, I might ask, is that the price to pay for removing censorship? I'm asking seriously, I don't think it's self-evident. Is freedom of the press and freedom of information more important than an individual's or a family's respect? I just don't know anymore.
So doggin, does your principle still hold even under this extreme situation?