That article doesn’t contradict the point. The relevant laws hinge on explicit sexual content, nudity, or sexual acts, plus specific elements like intent or rec

That article doesn’t contradict the point. The relevant laws hinge on explicit sexual content, nudity, or sexual acts, plus specific elements like intent or reckless facilitation. A non-explicit "put them in a bikini" image does not meet that threshold on its own. If prosecutors continue to argue otherwise, that theory will have to survive First Amendment scrutiny. I wish them the best of luck in that endeavor and look forward to its resolution. >> The level of alarm being applied here is grossly disproportionate to the act itself and is merely being used as a pretext for broader intervention. > I don't know why I am, but I'm surprised people are going to bat for this. Where is your line, exactly? Is it legality? Is it further along? If something is illegal, that’s a clear boundary and the appropriate place for enforcement. If it’s legal, the burden is on anyone arguing for restriction to explain why speech controls are justified despite that -- what concrete harm exists, why existing law is insufficient, and why the remedy won’t create more error or suppression than it prevents. Absent that showing, "this feels bad" or "this is alarming" isn’t a standard.