I think his concern was for the people behind filters and monitors who trip a million and one alarms when a breast is detected.

Of course things like dying war victims and terrible mutilation will probably pass by these systems A-OK. (Which is really sad when you think about it.)

I'm not making a comment on the morality of the images only that some automatic content filters might consider it pornography which is usually not allowed in corporate environments

Workplace policies are what make something nsfw, not any ridiculously extrapolated failings as a human.

"not safe for work" means you shouldn't be viewing these images at work and if you got caught seeing them, a resistant boss might not accept your explanation. It has nothing to do with the context the article provides regarding the NSFW material.

If you're willing to impress a tortured reading onto his innocuous (and correct!) comment just so that you can make a statement about society's views, there's something wrong with you as a human.

And yet current culture has more issues with the topless woman being shown in the media then disfigured victims.

I can understand the original warning, even though I think personally that its crazy I should be worried at work about viewing the topless tribal woman but not worried about the victims. In this I think our society is sick.

Yes, if only we could pay the bills with naive idealism.