The line isn't as clear as you might imagine: what if a journalist secretly captures the Lord's Resistance Army pillaging a village in the Congo? Certainly, the images might depict real children being raped/killed in the most brutal fashion.
But would it not be worse to censor that material to thwart the few perverts that may get off on it, all the while preventing the public from knowing and feeling the truth so viscerally that they may actually deign to do something about it?
But would it not be worse to censor that material to thwart the few perverts that may get off on it, all the while preventing the public from knowing and feeling the truth so viscerally that they may actually deign to do something about it?