Death of a President was screened in the US. It depicts a fictional assassination of the then-sitting US President. There wasn't even a whiff of illegality around it, even if the big chains refused to screen it, it wasn't for fear of prosecution.
Newmarket paid one million dollars for the U.S. distribution rights.
The film was screened in the U.S. for 14 days, showing at 143 theatres at its widest release.
Regardless of where it was created, if there were such a prohibition, the film most certainly wouldn't have been shown in the US, nor anyone silly enough to pay for distribution rights. Note there were issues regarding screening, but it was some independent companies—not some government regulation—that made the decision not to screen it. All of this is evident from your parent comment.
Why is it so important for you to press this particular point, even after you've said you would refer to the law later tonight?
It was released in America, so it doesn't matter. America law applies (and the first amendment, unlike the free speech garauntee in the Chinese constitution, ours actually means something).
I'm talking about American law where American law applies.