Deputy City Attorney Mark Stiles said that, while the images might be technically in breach of the nudity section of the city's local code, they were in line with the other standards upheld by the law. For prosecution the images would have to appeal to "prurient interests", lack any redeeming artistic merit and be offensive to "prevailing community standards".
That's all I asked. Thank you. See, wasn't so hard now was it?
I already knew the common response as I said "For Obvious Reasons" originally, as I seen the images myself and were of course not as bad as some I seen before. It made little difference in the conversation or my opinions on the matter, it was a simple question with very little intentions behind it.
The original article supplied said they were dropped but left out why..... I asked why, there's your answer.... done.
Your first quote was not the official answer, as it came from the company in a statement, but your second quote is what I was asking for.
Once again, thank you. I'm sure I could have dug up the answer myself, but where's the fun in that?