The Internet is a world of extremes. Yes, even "extremes" are subjective. Somehow, Andres Serrano scored a $15,000 payday from the NEA for Piss Christ. Why? Who knows? I wouldn't have approved those grants if I had been working at the NEA or been on whatever House or Senate Committee that oversees funding for the arts back in 1987, but that wasn't my call.
The rules of "politically correct" do change over time. At the time The Birth of a Nation was released, Juno's producers would not only have not received $15,000 in art grants from the government, they would have served jail time and paid heavy fines to the government for distribution of obscene material, and if they were extremely lucky, the Supreme Court might have granted cert for their appeal. And the Supreme Court of 1915 was not friendly towards their viewpoint. A hundred years later, the rules and social attitudes have changed to where the situations would be reversed. Well, sort of. Nobody would imprison D.W. Griffith in 2014, but he would have had an extremely tough time trying to find a movie studio willing to distribute Nation, or theaters willing to show it. Keep in mind, Birth of a Nation is still considered by the serious film community to be the best movie ever produced at the time of its release in 1915, so it has artistic merit even among its harshest detractors. But that also isn't an issue of government censorship. That's private platform holders making a decision about what they are and aren't willing to accept. The courts would readily uphold Griffith's right to make and release Nation, but beyond keeping the government's hands off of him, they can't do anything about current public sentiment about Nation. Pro or con.
I wasn't criticizing your opinion of Actual Sunlight or whatever it's called. I don't think it's something I would enjoy and it's probably something I would consider a "boring slog."
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." - Justice Potter Stewart's famous concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), a landmark case that rolled back government censorship.


