I agree with you about not censoring jokes, but seriously.. these are not the kind of jokes that are worth the time spent looking at them. Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
No they don't, humour is not objective. Regardless of how distasteful a joke is, it's intentions are not to incite violent acts. So the only casualty is how offended you are by them. If they are offensive, simply don't view them which is very easy to do.
> Would a picture of your face with blood with the tag line "Tom Gullen didn't know when to shut up." be a joke? I think not.
Honestly I might find it funny, it depends on who executed it, how it was executed and how it was presented. It would be hard to execute in such a way where I would find it funny, but it's definitely possible.
Either way I don't think your example is very good. Your presenting an example of targeting a named individual, and what's actually going on is most of the 'humour' images are targeting demographics.
A better example would be a picture of a bloodied man with the caption "He still hasn't mowed the lawn" or whatever. I would probably chuckle because the image was so bizarre but I don't think it should be censored.
About 100 years ago when Duchamp put a urinal on display and titled it Fountain, you bet people were screaming "that's not art!" And that was just the beginning.
There's anti-art and anti-jokes. There's institutional critiques, inside jokes, and meta-humor. It's not all appropriate, and it's not all good.
The rule is: if you don't get it, then it's not for you.