> 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.
Is there a fundamental difference between a) drawing KKK members killing little black girls and b) writing about KKK members killing little black girls (which you just did)?
> So pictures of KKK members killing little black girls would be fine as long as the images were "drawn"?
Much worse things are displayed in comics and described in books. What's confusing here?
It's fiction, and there's no reason I can see, except in the light of very special evidence that such drawings have an effect on the incidence of such events taking place (which is similar to when people say that violent video games cause children to become murderers later in life), to make it illegal.
Unless you have evidence or an argument, that is. It seems to contradict the notion of liberal democracy to engage in such censorship of artwork and fiction.
>So pictures of KKK members killing little black girls would be fine as long as the images were "drawn"?
Yes.
In fact there are many comics and films showing "KKK members killing little black girls" or worse, and nobody thought to censor "Mississippi burning" or something like that...
>You seem generally confused about the points you are trying to make.
You seem generally confused about the points you are trying to make.