I don't think there's any need to publish them. I think it would be in extremely bad taste to do so.
That said, if a newspaper published them I think they'd be well within their legal rights.
In other words, please don't publish but the First Amendment says it's legal.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
While the gross-out factor may be extreme, it changes nothing about the proposed federal "universal" BG check law that is being touted as "helpful" even "necessary", since the gun(s) used for the Sandy Hook shooting were bought directly from a FFL dealer (now closed) and thus their purchase was legal and subject to existing (and naturally the proposed changed/enhanced) gun laws, including the NICS BG check.
It takes no special weapon, skill or talent to massacre teachers/children that have been herded into a tight group in a school gym. The entire Sandy Hook school shooting episode took less than four minutes from the perp's initial entry to the perp's suicide. Something as simple, and as inexpensive, as locks that can be activated from INSIDE of the classrooms would have saved far more lives than having to change magazines a few more times. Any (and all) existing "high capacity" magazines would remain available and usable for decades to detrmined mass shooters, such as Adam Lanza, that have parents, friends or relatives that own guns, even if the new AWB and MCL laws were passed as well. Anyone willing to kill his own mother (and himself) is not very likely to be deterred by stricter gun availability laws.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
No. People should have enough class to not post such things all over the media.