That is understandable.  However, wouldn't it be accurate then, that for government community members, such content is not illegal and therefore it is acceptable to distribute to such individuals in a lawful and legal manner?

btw, my apologies for seemingly trolling ya about this, but I'm not trying to; simply making a point that the legality in situations involving governmental people is different than nongovernmental people and therefore it seems a bit inaccurate to claim 'not distribute illegal content to anyone' when precedent shows that individuals involved in such organized communities are not susceptible to the same legalities as those that are not participative or involved in such communities/groups.  Perhaps there is a more reliable way to indicate not distributing particular types of contents to anyone in a way other than referring it to it as 'illegal content' or 'illegal content based on us law?'  Maybe illegal content based on some other law which accounts for every existence whatsoever, including other species of animals and maybe even plants and other matters?'