It's not about 'stolen' images. And just because there is a market for such imagary doesn't make it right in any sense. People will pay money to see and experience horredous things - the fact that they are willing to pay does not negate any moral abhorrence.
It isn't simply taking a picture and if you think it is in this situation then I would posit that you have a problem with, at the very least, your empathetic responses.
There's nothing wrong with my empathic responses, I stated quite clearly that I could not have taken those images. What I disagree with is you moral stance and the duplicity which allows you to look at images of death, but then would seek to censure others doing the same.
I may not like the photographers actions personally but I have to separate that from what is stated in the law-I wouldn't punch a photographer taking a picture of my dying child –I would have more on my mind than the applied rules of censorship.
I think you have to learn to separate you personal 'moral abhorrence' with what is acceptable to others. I find your preaching far more 'abhorrent' than those who would seek to take those images.
What we have here is someone who was selfish enough to commit suicide to directly affect others. I disagree that the actions of those taking the pictures would upset the people affected by her death, I think they have more to think about than the self moralistic machinations of people who would seek to limit them.
The mother of this child will always blame herself for her daughters death, the boyfriend who witnessed the selfish action will always wonder if he could have stopped it. Lives have been ruined, the bystanders who witnessed this with their eyes and cameras are but a small footnote to the sorry situation.
