> So pictures of KKK members killing little black girls would be fine as long as the images were "drawn"? Depends on the context doesn't it? You'd see things l

> So pictures of KKK members killing little black girls would be fine as long as the images were "drawn"? Depends on the context doesn't it? You'd see things like that in a political comic strip and you'd recognise it as condemning those actions. You might see it in a White Supremacist's distribution and see it as endorsing or encouraging the actions depicted. The use of comics & visual art to convey disgusting happenings in a publication-wide context has been used for a long time in Western media. The act of drawing the image, the act of publishing the image, I can personally find neither morally reprehensible without taking the wider context into consideration. I'm also a fairly strong supporter of allowing media I find distasteful to be distributed (I caveat this with as long as the production of the media isn't hurting anyone). Largely because censoring everything doesn't achieve a great deal, just hides those ideas from people who in all liklihood weren't the intended audience. Having folk bring their more 'underground' affiliations into the sunlight sure helps know who to avoid. I've seen it many times where I'll be vetting a new employee or supplier, see their Facebook profile, and be genuinely appalled by the stuff they're sharing and supporting. Do I think that free mode of 'speech' should be shut down? Pfft, no, gave me a glowing indicator not to deal with this person without having to go through the trouble of dealing with them first and realizing it to be a mistake.