Leftists hate when free, independent Americans support our troops & exercise their right to enjoy the great outdoors. #pac

this will be banned

Q:

this will also be banned

You can’t fool me with that podium Meowth, I know you have no pants on 😤

Q:

banned

Q:

no, because it's obviously not intended to be sexual or erotic

Chiseled Giga Chad with the uber-square jaw line and jeans provocatively unzipped and half-falling off isn’t intended to be sexual/erotic?

no

Alright man. Well, we’ve been down this very road before many times with IG. With or without a law, there is only so much any elected government can do to restrict speech here. (Art. 14, Sec. 1).

Will revisit if you win, and if the law passes. Big ifs!

public nudity isn't protected by free speech, so there are limits, as you yourself have said, no?

If you think I'm trying hard to find borderline examples, you're mistaken. They're everywhere. They fall off the tree as soon as you start thinking about them.

See: This famous painting of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo that depicts a completely naked male. Despite the exposed male genitalia, this art fully complies with Imgflip TOS.

You might say this image would also be okay under your anti-erotic bill because the primary purpose of this art is religious. I don't know.

I might say the primary purpose of the two images of the girl and dude in their swimwear I posted above is simply to sell a swimsuit. And as a matter of fact I'd be right - these images are both simply taken from swimsuit ads.

Erotic? Really?

I might also say that the primary purpose of the OP meme we're commenting on of the woman holding an American flag while also wearing an American flag in swimsuit form is patriotic, and the text I added is inherently concerned with roleplay of this stream.

And you might agree with everything I said, or you might disagree with everything I said, or you might agree with some of what I said and disagree with other aspects.

Isn't all that an indication this subject isn't quite as cut-and-dry as it might seem?

What is and isn't banned by the no eroticism and sexual content rule is up to the judgment of the executive branch enforcing it. That's how government works.
Meaning in this case, the president would be the one deciding on a case-by-case basis what would and wouldn't fall under "erotic content". That leaves plenty room for judgment calls.

You don’t agree that GigaChad is “an internet archetype representing an ultra-masculine, sexually attractive male”?

I think you're trying too hard to find gray areas thinking it will somehow prove me wrong, however that works. You know exactly what I mean, and exactly what my bill will do.