US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

I wonder also: does it matter what the intentions of the host of the material are? If the images were posted somewhere like CrisisPictures.org (WARNING: graphic images), whose mission is "to show other Americans what is being done in our name", then would that make a difference?I'm inclined to think that almost anything goes when it's likely to spread anti-war sentiment.

Well, I look at it as more than a political purpose, and specifically said that almost anything goes, but yes. I feel that war is the most morally reprehensible thing imaginable, not least because of the threat it poses to the freedom of individuals. So perhaps the ends justify the means here? In this case, I'm not sure that the action did end up aiding the war effort, whatever the intentions of the authors or host of the material. If the photos drew sufficient media attention in the United States and other pro-war nations, then perhaps they have furthered the notion that "war is Hell". With wars being waged further from home (physically and mentally) than ever before, and the mainstream media giving increasing coverage of conflict while increasingly "sanitizing" that coverage, I think that we need to be reminded of the reality occasionally... or often.I'm sorry if none of this helps with your moral quandry =) We probably have very different beliefs as to the nature of morality.

Or maybe war under the cloak of snuff.As you said: we have a "willingness to find moral offense in the simple rather than in the actual horrific brutality we engage in at much greater levels." I think that the act of photographing the dead was the "simple", whereas the "horrific brutality" was the killing that went on first.