>>3026
Here's related laws:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256
Also you quote Wikipedia article here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_pornography_depicting_minors#United_States
But that continues, and there is this paragraph (for example):
>"In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that two parts of the act that were broader than the Miller standard, 1466A a(2) and b(2), were unconstitutionally overbroad as applied specifically to this case, but Handley still faced an obscenity charge. Handley was convicted in May 2009 as the result of entering a guilty plea bargain at the recommendation of his attorney, under the belief that the jury chosen to judge him would not acquit him of the obscenity charges if they were shown the images in question."

How's that saying goes?
>Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
In case of imageboard the reverse is often true. Please stop rule lawyering, and mislead legit users of the site. Thank you.

>>3032
Prudence and fear are not the same. Also we aren't free speech activists, or championing anything the like, we just run a free to use service on our own volition with as much liberty as possible, meanwhile we have a good track record keeping the site alive, it was established in 2015. Many imageboards couldn't even get to its one year birthday. Some were shut down in mere weeks. We know because refugees come and go all the time.