Then this brings up the matter of the recent pictures taken in Iraq. Should they have been censored? Where they any different from what we say should not be censored? Yet that brought up a firestorm of what should not be allowed. Which one is right?
I don't think anyone disagrees that child pornography is bad or thinks it should be legal. Nor, would I imagine, that anyone would think it is art or an expression of free speech.

What constitutes pornography might be a little more problematic.

I do think that the images from Iraq need to be displayed. An interesting aspect of the images is that the US networks edited the genitalia and the BBC left the genitals alone and edited the faces of the prisoners.

What do we think of the Catholic Church... Saddam Hussein... (etc.)employment of artists
I don't know what the rest think but I call it propaganda, and it can be art. It doesn't make it right or justify the means. I have a fabulous book on textiles and dry goods (patterns printed on bolts of cloth, china silverware etc..) of revolution era USSR. Complete propaganda and beautiful stuff.

I don't think that the NEA falls into that description. The artists are not ordered to produce for the government and the government is only indirectly involved in who is picked.
However the fact remains that Sally Manns children had no control over their images that are throughout the world. They received no compensation, and had no say in their usage. The case could be made that since they no longer look like that ( grown up) then they are not really victimized. It's a tough question.
Excellent point. I guess, as the parent decided for the children the children don't have a say.