wierd query about US censorship laws...

[DPDarkPrimus]

--I'm surprised noone thinks it is inappropriate to publish photos of naked children when it isn't necessary (unlike a medical text for instance). The child was never asked for permission and isn't old enough to give it in any case. Furthermore, even if the a gaurdian was consulted and gave consent it strikes me as exploitation.

Holy shit dude, so the war photographer is just supposed to stop all the villagers running from their village that was napalmed (including the girl in question, who was running naked BECAUSE HER CLOTHING HAD BEEN BURNT OFF) and say "Hey, sign this so I can publish the picture, please"?

That gets a big right there.

--Practicing for strawman of the year?

Says the boy who called the picture "exploitation".

[The Yosemite Bear]

I don't even see how a picture of a child with her clothing *burned off* could in any way be seen as 'sexual'

You'd be appalled at what people can jack off to. It could easily have appeal to some sadomasochistic paedophile.

Or a hardcore US Nationalist/anti-communist militarist type, atleast they do seem to get very, very excited by napalm and the like and it’s effects.

The Shep?

[Molyneux]

Making her anonymous by blurring the face and discluding the name would preclude the need for any consent given by the child.

Blurring the face would also take away much of the power of the photo as we could no longer see the anguish so clearly etched on her face and would really be exhibiting bizarre priorities the girl in question had just suffered 3rd degree burns over much of her body. Showing the world that this had been done to her in the name of democracy was very powerful public interest.

Incidentally here’s the photo in question for anybody who’s wondering what we’re on about:
*snip*

Jeez...she looks like a twig...O_o