[gcruse]

I assume, in all that somewhere, you are acknowledging that images are speech.
This, though...

those who believe a picture of a 9/11 jumper is sufficient rebuttal to the least criticism of the War on Terror

...is a tack I don't think I'd take.  Finally, although I live in the area of DisneyWorld, I have no desire to live in Disney world.  It's not all about the children.

[Askel5]

Well, that's my point. I don't like the tack either. I find it not only abhorrent but a real indication of the caliber of mind ... not only those which rely on flashing such images but--clearly--the mental pygmies whom they think to yank into shape with images rather than substantive argument.

You know I'm a "rabid" pro-lifer. With the exceptions of a few rare instances, I'm also generally opposed to the use of images of dead unborn children in order to make the argument FOR life.

I don't think shock value instructs so much as it desensitizes.

Much like we become desensitized to both images and words. I suppose I could still get downgraded on Liberty Forum or edited out here if I went around peppering every post with the word "fuck" ... but it would be rather odd in light of the FCC's finding that it's lost its shock value somehow.

(Probably hard to get too many of the lyrics to which "the kids" listen these days without it.)

Absent any objective standards -- such as those on which the distinctions between word and image would be based -- we're doomed to follow this "lowest common denominator" vector to its bitter end ... somewhere after infinity I imagine.

Turns out, it's an ever-expanding universe after all when you try to find the point at which the lowest common denominator limbo stick's gonna stop.