] A cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins
] bearing the remains of U.S. soldiers was published on a
] newspaper's front page was fired by the military
] contractor that employed her.
]
] Tami Silicio, 50, was fired Wednesday by Maytag Aircraft
] Corp. after military officials raised ''very specific
] concerns'' related to the photograph, said William L.
] Silva, Maytag president. The photo was taken in Kuwait.

[ I'm memeing this not because I want to stir up outrage over the firing... it would appear that, knowingly or otherwise, this woman did in fact violate Pentagon policy and therefore probably company policy, and that's probably reason enough to justify dismissal*.

Rather, I wanted to bring it up in the context of what is and isn't reasonable as far as visual coverage of war, and the right of people to know what's going on. Obviously, the picture serves as a reminder of the real human cost of the war, which should give pause to everyone, for or against it.

That being said, to what extent does the author's intent determine the appropriateness of the usage? Mrs. Silicio said she took the picture to show bereaved families just how respectfully the military treats their lost comrades, to comfort them. She was fired because the pentagon believes that such pictures will upset the families. Does her intent come through, or not?

Finally, does this sort of photo serve a greater purpose which outweighs the concerns of the families? Is reminding the public of the facts of war (assuming the picture does so) a higher calling than sheilding the bereaved? Where's the balance?

Being generally anti-war (by which i mean, not this one specifically, but the practice itself), I think there's good that comes out of forcing people to recognize, in no uncertain manner, the realities of war. People, and Americans perhaps more than others, have a nasty tendency to block out anything they find uncomfortable or disturbing, but it seems to me that sometimes a little bit of discomfort is necessary. Still, is it right to use this photo in that way, which was not the intent of the photographer? Do you have a responsibility to determine that intent beforehand, or is art, once released, subject to interpretation against the wishes of the artist?

Thoughts?

The picture can be found here : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2001906044.jpg

* Though I am curious why her husband was fired too...
-k]