Before going ballistic, please read the entire post.
Flickr is a private company.Thus, they are entitled to have their own TOS providing it does not violate the law.
If one of these terms are "You are only allowed to upload your own material, i.e. material created by you or which you solely hold the copyright for." so be it.
The fact that the employers in our cases have been a little more "elastic" in enforcing this does not make the posting of someoneelse's material any less a violation of TOS. The same as other people getting off with a warning for speeding does not make your über speeding any less a violation of the trafic laws.
There is a HUGE difference between the possible consequence of allowing a post of some guys picture he took of a moose and that of people getting tortured. I can easily understand why Flickr employees decided to use the TOS to get them offline from Flickr. In Denmark a cartoonist drew Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, the got published in a newspaper ( and reprinted ) and behold - later 3 muslim jerks planned to shoot all the journalists at the newspaper. The cartoonist was attacked by a muslim with an axe. In my opinion, it was just a stupid drawing - in theirs it was BLASFEMY!
Let's say : I create an online service ( funded by adds ) in which ANYONE can upload ANYTHING.
Soon, the Nazis upload their stuff, Pedophile upload their picture of "gang bang night at the Kindergarten" as well as the "normal" pictures.
What should I do? If my TOS state that anything can be uploaded shouldn't I permit them to upload their data? Or should I be the judge, jury and executioner and delete any piece of info I didn't like? And then, who's to say that my opinion was the right one?
We can also turn the table : Would you be as aggrivated if :
The Egyptian Police themselves uploaded pictures of them torturing people ( as a kind of momentum / brag ) and had those pictures removed? Or the Somali war lords started slaughtering people, called it a "revolution" and uploaded the pictures which were then removed?
I think it's interesting to note that people react very aggressively when then are told that all sites, private companies etc. do not wish to provide storage for any "revolution" everywhere in the world? I have no interest in what's happening in Egypt and I am not affilliated with Flickr in any way. But I don't think that even though something is "ethical" or "the right thing to do" releases any user from the TOS. It is up to the private company to decide when to use the TOS and when not to.
It is not so that the pictures have been withheld from the internet - a private company have only decided to uphold the TOS.
And with these words, I wait for the FUD.