Years ago, I participated in an American-produced reality/documentary series called "Trauma in the ER." As videographers, we had unrestricted access to hospital emergency rooms, and we filmed the most graphic scenes imaginable of open wounds and medical interventions.

The producers had only two provisos: We don't show genitalia. And we don't show people dying. "Nobody wants to see a dead patient," we were told. We could film in extreme (and invasive) close-up the traumatic and often bloody moments leading up to death, but we could not show the final breath.

Those provisos struck me as absurd then, and they do so now. People die in hospitals, and they die on battlefields, and they die in civil unrest. But the gatekeepers of good taste and propriety feel we need to be protected from the stark images, the actuality, of death, as if it were an obscenity.

Of course, those pictures may engender strong emotion. They should. Those are emotions we all need to feel. It is arrogant and presumptuous of an editor or a journalist to take upon himself or herself the role of guardian of some imagined sense of "good taste."

An editor must ask herself two questions: Is the material essential to the viewer's understanding of the event? Does the benefit of airing the material outweigh the harm?

On the first question, the uncensored image and sound demonstrates the reality of the crackdown and the consequences of the Supreme Leader's threats a day earlier. It is horrible, but it is the reality of the situation. The truth of this injustice would not hit Canadians in such a visceral way if the images were censored.

On the second question, one must consider the impact upon family members, some of whom might be living in Canada. This country has a large Iranian ex-pat community, and it's not unconceivable that family members might even learn of her death though these images. Some stations played it correctly by first airing blurred out images and then, when enough time had passed, airing the uncensored ones. Even so, a convicing argument can be made that the benefit of showing the Canadians the reality of state terror perpetrated by a government on its own people outweighs the risk of hurting family members in Canada.

Would we show such an image of a Canadian? Probably not, but our government generally doesn't shoot peaceful protesters after stealing an election. If it did, the stakes would be higher than normal, and the media would be quite justified in showing the images.

Mainstream news media have to quit worrying about what advertisers think, and broadcast information that helps the global community at large understand the atrocities of life and death.

As long as there is fair warning, and it is not malicious, or done in a sensational manner, it is ethical and necessary.

If mainstream doesn't do it, the internets will.

I think people need to be made aware of the harsh reality in places like iran and of what they are facing in their fight for democracy.

To not show the video is censorship and is protecting people from understanding the full scope of the situation in Iran.

The video literally brought me to tears and my heart goes out to all the innocent people in the world who have suffered and died defending what they believe is right in a peaceful way.