Violent real-life footage versus showing fake violence

I agree with France's leftwinger Mr Mélenchon: you can't win from extreme right by prosecuting someone who showed terrible images of real violence to defend herself and her party from being compared with an extremely violent terrorist group, as long as that party didn't use the same violence as the terrorists used. Imagine Mrs Le Pen may be fined or even has to go to prison for showing the violence of ISIS, things that we know are true, it is likely more people will defend her and her party. Further, it can also become an argument to sentence journalists who show possible extreme right violence because violence can't be shown. No, ISIS violence was and still is real and thus you can't prosecute someone for speaking truth about this violence while comparing this group and extreme right that claims to be against violence probably only plays to the benefit of extreme right as long as it doesn't use violence. But it is correct, because the language and images that extreme right used and still uses, in parliament but also in publications and cartoons, it is correct a certain part of the targeted society was fed-up with it and became angry and started to use violence such as against magazines that publish extreme right images, just as extreme right wishes they would do or they would not have spoken or written as they did. And thus, against hate speeches and images it should be possible to go to court and demand it stops.

In effect, people should know how extreme certain terrorist groups are so we understand why people escape their country. It is not worship of violence but information about real life situations. Of course, people can be warned in advance about certain forms of extreme violence they may see and maybe this footage should be reserved for news later in the evening such as after 20h00, thus after bedtime for younger children. But even youngsters may know about this violence while media, parents and schools have a duty to explain why this violence is wrong.

In addition and in contrast, I think fictional extreme (sexual) violence such as in movies and games should not be allowed, at least not for younger people because it celebrates the killing of living creatures, including humans, and seem to suggest that murder is fun and people gain points or money from it. Therefore, and as in the past, movies and games should have an age category attached to them to protect vulnerable people. Maybe extremely violent films and games should be banned altogether. I understand, even nudity and same-sex relationships were banned in the past while this should be normal except when it includes sexual abuse of other persons. I recognise that many writers, filmmakers and game makers deny a link between violence by some in society and violent books, films and games. However, at least one horror writer, i.e. Stephen King acknowledged one of his books may have been that extra to cause real life horror in America. Indeed, violence for leisure can give ideas to certain persons but also, indoctrination that violence is good and honourable is used by groups such as ISIS to create monsters from their children. On the other hand, books or films describing the build up to the use of violence may also inform how to recognise warnings so we can act before they become real such as ending that children are bullied.

In summary, the use of violence as illustration to disproof something while this violence is real is difficult to condemn unless the violence is used to create anger, block emotions and create monsters. In Mrs Le Pen's case, unfortunately she defended herself against suggestions she and her party were the same as ISIS and therefore showed the violence of ISIS to show she doesn't do this kind of violence.