Quote Originally Posted by gregdavis
I find it appalling that liberals like to cry out that the people in custody are not being treated according to the Geneva Convention, but when something like this happens, they are perfectly willing to throw the Convention out and show the photos in order to embarass the Bush administration. I guess the Geneva Convention is only applied when it's convenient.
The problem isn't liberals. If the Geneva Convention is being violated and there's visual proof, why shouldn't people be made aware of it? To hell with embarassing the Bush administration - what about press freedom? The Geneva Convention means nothing without a means to publicly acknowledge whether or not it is being properly enforced.

And, I might also point out, the liberal media is a myth. The American media is by far more conservative than it is liberal. It is a convenient myth for right wing career politicians who are intent on left-bashing to advance their own interests.

If you don't like the way the images of prisoners are being used in the media, that's fine. Fact of the matter is that I don't either. But find something other than liberals to pin blame on.

Now then, on to other things.

Censorship in nearly every form and application is, I believe, fundamentally wrong. About the only form of censorship I agree with is moderate parental controls over what children come in contact with. If you don't want your kids to see certain things, that's fine, but you have to take that responsibility on yourself. However, for a society to constantly bowdlerize everything from commercials to literature to photography is to quickly tumble backwards down a slope away from progress.

As my hacker friends like to say, information is meant to be free. I like to change the specifics of this and say that art is meant to be free. Not just visual arts, but performance, literature, etc. Art should not, and indeed cannot be censored or limited on the level of a community or society if we are to move forward at all. Make yourself blind to that which you find objectionable and you solve nothing. Ignorance and blind rejection only magnify existing problems.

As others have pointed out, free expression within the arts and free distribution of art throughout society has benefits that hugely outweigh any discomfort felt by some in encountering a few things they don't like. It is a very worthy investment, as in the long run for every bit of effort governing bodies and other groups put in promoting and encouraging the arts, the societal gains are tenfold. To censor is to deny this outright and treat the unknown with fear rather than with an honest evaluation of the matter at hand.

Quote Originally Posted by blansky
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.
Actually, as I understand it they've always had a say about whether or not they would be photogrpahed in the first place. I remember seeing in an article or review somewhere her daughter remarking that for a period of time around adolescence she objected and her moother didn't photograph her. She later reconsidered and was ok with it again.