As I replied elsewhere, the difference is in intent. Content created to shock may be made for reasonable reasons. It's not necessarily the images themselves tha

As I replied elsewhere, the difference is in intent. Content created to shock may be made for reasonable reasons. It's not necessarily the images themselves that causes people to lose faith in humanity. For example, if I watched a film that had a depiction of a rape, I could see it as serving some function in the story. However, the same rape conducted with real intent would have a much different meaning. The intent to kill/maim/damage is something that has been condemned for centuries. Exceptions are made for war by those who seek power, but the solders who come out of the other end as psychologically scarred pay the price for such follies. As for people with fringe interests, it all comes back to the golden rule. Leaving aside the murky waters of 'taking offense', any actions that impact the physical wellbeing of another should be open to public scrutiny. If I rape someone you know, that's not an act that you have to tolerate under the umbrella of free expression.