I wonder how many people objected to obscenity in for example, the old Sears catalogs, or ads showing mini-skirts, etc. It seems difficult enough to assert free use by limiting fair use. But add to that a value judgement based on taste seems a bit out of character of maximizing free use. Either its open or its not, either its free or not, seemed to have been the standard directions on the compass.
Granted, some images are controversial, but that likewise makes them either or both newsworthy and encyclopedic. [[Virgin Killer]] or [[Houses of the Holy]] (what happened to the real controversial Zeppelin one?) might be objected to for inclusion on WP, but only on the basis of the same puritanical (ie. "moral") grounds which made it controversial or noteworthy to begin with. Paraphrasing H.L. Mencken, "The great encyclopedists of the world are never Puritans, and seldom respectable. No virtuous man --that is, virtuous in the Y.M.C.A. sense --has ever written an encyclopedia worth reading..."
But not to come across as being too libertine, I strongly agree with those who wish to immediately remove all facials images from Wikipedia --though even such agreeable censorship might contradict the goal of documenting and representing a rather climactic aspect of commercialized human sexuality, and not to mention the seeding interest for establishing the internet in the first place.
SV
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs