While it’s not the media witch hunt of the mid-90s, it needs to be reiterated that movies and other pieces of art are not to blame for violent acts. A national tragedy has both left us numb and stirred up the slumbering emotions of a fevered national discourse, and while it’s important to air those grievances (no matter what end of the spectrum we fall on), it’s imperative that pundits of all stripes keep a level head and avoid irresponsibly throwing art under the bus for the sobering acts of one individual. Unfortunately, several media outlets have – in their hurry to toss more examples onto the argumentative fire – evoked the name of a four-year-old festival film from Britain (that few people saw) in order to help prove a trend in filmmaking of inciting violence against public officials. A trend, of course, that does not exist. To callously toss Death of a President out into a sea of negative context and to suggest that public entities of varying types should have decried the film as hateful is to tacitly champion censorship of the worst kind. It’s to quietly claim that some subject matter is off limits, and that’s unacceptable.