The reason for starting this thread was that the issues raised by it seem to me to be exactly the same, in terms of the limits society imposes on a free press, as are raised by the Paris shootings. I watched the treatment of the page 3 issue on Newsnight last night, however, and listened to further repayment of it on the radio this morning, and was struck by the difference in 'narrative' between the two stories.
In dealing with page 3 issues, the overwhelming sense I got was that ending topless page 3 shots was a good thing because the images published were offensive (to some), and I heard very little about the press's right to publish offensive things. There was however a lot about 'objectifying' and 'degrading'. During the reaction to the Paris shootings I heard an awful lot about the Press's right to publish offensive things and a lot less about the offensive nature (to some) of the images published. There was however a lot about 'liberties' and 'principles'.
There are of course cogent arguments that can be made either way in each case - the inconsistency between the ways in which the same issues were presented in different contexts was what struck me.