Then what happens to all the war photographs of carnage? Before the start the reality of the photographic process was discovered, war was glorified, glamorized, romanticized in paintings. Brave, courageous generals on powerful steeds slaying and crushing the enemy undr foot are on display in musuems all around the world.

Then the photojournalist came on the scene. Who was it, Mathew Brady and his images of the Civil War? Those photos must have been shocking the first time they were published for a public auidience. Since then, WWII and WWII, Vietnam, Korean and many others have been fought and the photojournalist has rcorded all the reality of thousands of horrors.

The Holocost of WWII is probably a perfect example. Images of the German atrocities, of Jews, Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses are now on public display in the Holocost Museum in Washington DC. Why? To educate the public as to what happened. Imagesof piles of emaciated bodies, buthered in gas chambers, starved into scarecrows. Are these displayed for shock purposes or to educated? If someone is shocked, horrified, saddened at the sight of such human perversions, I would think that would indicate someone who has a good moral conscience.

So then what would be the difference between images of of humans deformed by war, or birth defects? Both can be shocking. But to display them to educate, inform poeple is proper.

You want to talk about images that are displayed for shocking purposes, what about all the so called artistic nudes? Where do you draw the line on art vs pornography, vs even child pornography which is illegal.