My standard for releasing the photo

[scheming daemons]

If he wouldn't let Sasha and Malia see it, then please Mr. President, don't show my kids.

I trust your judgement on that.


Call in all 535 members of congress for a viewing of the photo. Show it to foreign leaders.


But if you don't want your daughters to see it, don't thrust it upon mine.

[Raven]

1. Absolutely perfect standard. n/t

[quinnox]

2. Nah, I want to see it

I think people are capable of making their own decisions on whether they want themselves or their kids to see the photo, this is a free country after all.

[scheming daemons]

4. If it is plastered on TV, there is no way for people to make that decision for their kids

They'll see it.


That photo will be on the cover of magazines. It will be all over the internet.


There's no way for me to be able to shield that image from my kids if I wanted to.


Yours is a very naive perspective.

[BzaDem]

11. Sometimes, there are negative consequences for free speech as opposed to censorship.

This would be one of them.

I'm not claiming Obama has a legal obligation to release the photo -- I'm just pointing out that your standard (if applied more generally) is in general antithetical with the first amendment (which is why MUCH more violent images/video games/etc are released every day). Kids see things that they shouldn't be exposed to. That's life.

[quinnox]

13. That makes zero sense

They would give warnings on tv if the photo was that disturbing before they showed it anyway, so your precious kids won't have to look at it.

I don't want people like you making my choices as to whether we get to see the damn photo or not.

You sound like Tipper Gore. " But think of the children!"

[Brickbat]

20. "No way for people to make that decision for their kids"? What kind of TV do you have?

Does it beam directly into brains? I also doubt very strongly that the photo would be "on the cover of magazines." It'll be all over the Internet, but so is a lot of other stuff. Your argument is odd to me.

[malaise]

3. 100% correct

Rec

[Ian David]

5. Because everything on the internet has to be fit for children? n/t

[scheming daemons]

8. Nope

On the internet, they have to go looking for it.


On TV news or on magazine covers, they see it whether they want to or not.

[Ian David]

16. I was about to say, "Nobody would be that irresponsible..." but you make a good point. n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. baloney...

let's not have anything your kids cannot see. yeah, that works.

sP

[FormerDittoHead]

17. Yes. They managed to release the JFK autopsy pix and somehow the world didn't come to an end. n/t

[Bonobo]

7. How would Obama show your kids?

Releasing it is the same as thrusting it upon your daughters?

I give you points for originality but you fall somewhat short in the logic and rationality department.

[scheming daemons]

10. If it is released, then it is on TV and magazine covers... they can't avoid that

it will be shown everywhere.

[Bonobo]

15. They would not put a bloody photo on magazine covers and TV.

Besides, your daughters -unless you watch them like a hawk - will be seeing many disgusting and embarrassing things on the internet soon (I don't know what age they are).

You will have to trust that they can handle it.

Also, you cannot seriously expect that government transparency should be determined by what is acceptable to be shown to your daughters. Can you?

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. Make it a publicly available document under the FoIA. The infotainment channels aren't going to

show it anyway just like they don't show a lot of gruesome things.

But frankly, they should.

War is not this sterile thing it's made out to be. Show the American people just how messy it is.
Show the children that this is what it's come to. That this is the world the adults have created for them.

[Bandit]

12. I would think that would have to extend to watching TV and Movies as well

America sees on a daily basis way worse than what any picture they release will show..Some commercials, especially for xbox games are far worse than any civilized people should be watching.

[Uben]

14. They show pictures of Cheney, so.....

....how much worse can graphic pictures of UBL be? They are both enemies of Americans, except Cheney is much uglier than UBL.

[no_hypocrisy]

18. Without a doubt.

When I was a kid, I'd have nightmares over all sorts of photos that were gruesome.

[seabeyond]

19. they dont want to but a majority wants it. a woman from muslim org was on ed shultz

and she really believed it was necessary for muslims across the world. and not for those that will be angry he is dead, but for the huge majority that see him as a stain on their people and want to be sure he is gone. i found it a compelling argument and i am against the photos going out

[Contrary1]

21. I don't think the President's decision should be based on who wants to see it.

Releasing photos will do nothing to convince the conspiracy believers to change their minds.

I worry about our troops who are still in the Middle East. There are plenty of fanatic Muslims who would go violent, even if they were not fans of Bin Laden. Look what happened when one preacher burned a copy of the Koran.

If a single person, anywhere in the world, loses their life because the photos are made public; it will not have been worth it...no matter who wants to see it.