Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

The White House Correspondents' Association has condemned a video that depicted a fake image of US President Donald Trump slaughtering members of the news media, shown at a gathering of his supporters.

You mis-understand.

The offence in this case was not caused by people showing the video but the media, the New York Times, finding it the most interesting part of the event.

After all, the organisers knew nothing about it, how can they be asked to take any notice of what was going on under their noses?

I watched the video.

It was from the Kingsman (?), not actual footage from a massacre.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:  I watched the video. It was from the Kingsman (?), not actual footage from a massacre.

There was a feeble attempt at sarcasm in my posting.

I'd think we'd expect condemnation of showing that film and a witch-hunt to find those responsible.

The thing is, I had to watch it because part of me honestly thought they were going to use the footage from the Christchurch massacre.

I had to know if they would stoop that low.

Thankfully, they did not.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

The thing is, I had to watch it because part of me honestly thought they were going to use the footage from the Christchurch massacre. I had to know if they would stoop that low. Thankfully, they did not.

So pretend violence is OK, but real violence is taboo?

Oh, silly me. Showing up real violence leads to years of imprisonment and torture, as your fellow Australian can testify.

Amazing!

BerrySteph said:

So pretend violence is OK, but real violence is taboo?

One is box office entertainment, the other is a snuff film.

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

One is box office entertainment, the other is a snuff film.

You seem to be defending corporations and their right to profit from us without limit.

However, in this case, you're on the side of right - we certainly don't need more censorship of war-crimes.