I absolutely disagree with that. Like I said, neutrality does not equal moral relativism. An encyclopedia *must* decide what is and isn't acceptable. There is no choice *except* to decide that.
Why not? What happens if we choose not to decide that?
"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Seriously, though, if you don't decide what to include and what not to include, then you haven't created an encyclopedia, you've created a blob of random bits of content.
Oh, sure, we need to decide what is acceptable in terms of notability and verifiability, that's not the same as deciding what is morally acceptable which is what we are talking about here.
Yes, Florida law (although I think UK law is pretty similar in this regard). It's not neutral, it's arbitrary, but we have no choice in the matter.
That's exactly the point I made above, though. You have to choose. Why choose arbitrarily?
Because we have no choice. You don't choose to obey the law, you have to do it or you get stopped.
What legal content under Florida law isn't acceptable? And says who?
The beheading of Nick Berg seems to be legal under Florida law. But I don't find it acceptable, and neither do a majority of Wikipedians. That's just one example though. There are an infinite number of them.
Well, yes, we make an exception for things that don't significantly add to the article, which that wouldn't. People have a pretty good idea of what a beheading looks like, so you don't really need to show them. I guess that is somewhat arbitrary, but there are exceptions to every rule.
There's clearly no mens rea on the part of record shop owners at this point.
Generally (by my understanding) mens rea means you knew what you were doing, it doesn't require you to know that it was illegal.
Furthermore, I
don't see how you can state unequivocally that "no-one has ever been
charged
with any offence regarding this image". The image clearly is illegal in certain middle-eastern countries, isn't it?
I'll concede that point and withdraw the overly generalised remark. No-one has been charged in either the US or the UK, which are the two jurisdictions relevant to this discussion.
Why are those the only jurisdictions relevant? I thought the only relevant jurisdiction was Florida.
UK law is relevant because it is UK law that has prompted the censorship. UK law may not be relevant to our decision on whether or not to include the image, but it is relevant to the discussion.