Art and the beholder 

If the notion that art (even when spectacularly crude) is responsible for consumer wrongdoing sounds familiar, it should. Politicians and firebrand crusaders have long exploited it, in attention-seizing variations.

Sculptures, paintings, various musical genres, literature, pornography, and public speakers have all suffered censorial attempts.

The undergirding 'causal link' supposition is easily put away by reflecting that the overwhelming majority enjoys creativity without misbehavior resulting. And critics who blame expressions for causing harms have consumed the same, also without tragic consequence. 

We are not robots, incapable of exercising autonomous judgment. Ultimate responsibility for pulling a trigger lies with the gunman, not a message he encountered. (Besides, were responses Pavlovian in nature, there would be more love in the world; historically, much art has spoken of it.)

Creative conceptions and vogues certainly can impact attitudes --advertising can be influential, after all -- but they cannot compel healthy consumers to act in ways that conflict with their fundamental characters.

If someone does perpetrate horrible violence after playing an online game, watching a film, hearing a song, or reading a book, they had a predisposition toward it, or at least a weakness that cannot reasonably be assigned to art.

There should never be a child safety cap on creativity. No one should be expected to fashion only works so elementary and flavorless as to be appropriate for even the psychologically disheveled.