Fighting there doesnt have anything to do with here. Iraq especially. Afganistan we are loosing anyway.

So what, that's fine as long as its below the rate.
File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
These are figures on how many people died in the US in 2004(latest) by a weapon, around 8000 or so....
As long as we are below that figure than its fine i guess. We still have a ways to...

FARS Encyclopedia
Great then, over 34000 people died last year in automobile accidents. Man we have a ways to go there as well. Great analogy !!!
Our country is going broke and we cannot afford it anymore and i have given up MANY of my freedoms to this government because of this stupid wars. If my freedoms have been endangered then the terrorists have won. Iraq has nothing to do with my freedoms, Afganistan as well.

Excuse me, BUT, what does my support for troops have to do with me opposing or supporting a war. Maybe we should attack whoever we like as well, its justified as long as our troops are there huh?
Maybe if the government started attacking people here as well, we should support them anyways?


BEST WAY TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS IS TO MAKE THEM COME HERE. Those who were responsible for the attacks on this country are still on the loose, Bin Laden isnt even charged with the Sep11 attacks http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm , and even though we are there, it aint doing it no good over here, but i guess as long as our causality level is below the level of our automobile accidents we are all good.

Immediately following 9/11, and I'm talking within DAYS, enlistment was up all over the country after we watched 3000 people die. If anything, it has the opposite effect because it angers people.

So then it's a good thing.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance"

The press doesn't merely have the right to publish this information, in a truly free and just society it has an obligation to do so. If it's true it should get published.

Lots of people don't want lots of things published every day. The right and necessity of the public to have access to such information outweighs those wishes.

No.


Did Congress make a law saying these photos could not be published? Or was this a PRIVATE entity (the AP) that made the CHOICE to not honor the wishes of the family, and not publish the photo?

That is the most ridiculous jump to a conclusion I've ever seen.

The public has no right to see the dead body of a private citizen, nor does it have a necessity to see the dead body of a private citizen. If these were government photos, you would have a basis for this argument. But they aren't.

Apparently you left off the word US (US private citizen), as I have seen plenty of Holocaust and Hiroshima and other such war graphics to embed the horrific events in my mind forever.

Unless they were taken by the government, we have no right to see them. The AP had a right to publish the photo - that isn't the point. The point is that they ignored the wishes of the family for no good reason.

I understand what you are saying, that the AP went against the wishes of the family and it was very disrespectful.

But when you start saying "rights" it takes away from the point above. We have the right to free speech , which is protected by the highest from of Law to this country, the United States Constitution. We have a right to see things from the government through the Freedom of Information Act. The AP had the right to publish the pictures protected by the US Constitution in the fact that it is free from censorship or limitations. The AP published the picture within that "right".

The point of the OP, and over all debate was, I believe the fact the family asked them not to be published. Perhaps the AP is in error with the moral obligation bestowed upon them by the soldiers family. But the AP was within the rights of freedom of speech.

We have the right to read/see what we wish, if it is published under the Freedom of Speech.

I believe, Rev, you are saying that we do not have the moral right to see those pictures but to deny their publication is censorship.

I used the word because LCH made the claim that we had a right and an obligation to see the picture. No such right exists. Had the AP chose to do the morally correct thing and respect the family's wishes, LCH would have no right to see the picture, and the AP would have no obligation to publish it.

They should have respected the family and self-censored.