Holy smokes, somehow pointing out the fact the government has stupidly vague laws, and that pointing out that said laws could endanger a publicly traded company, and further pointing out that someone might bring attention to the title on a slow newsday (mirroring previous anime-related moral panics in the media,) has actually enraged someone to the point of registering an account on Toon Zone.
I am enjoying this vastly more than I should.
Welcome to the debate.
Oh boy, you almost had me going until you ended on an ad-hominem attack. Actually, your whole argument is rife with assumptions about my personality and character, and you somewhat misrepresent the content of Strike Witches as just being panty shots (sorry but you're wrong, look at the screen caps from the uncut series. They are easily googlable. It's not explicit, but it's step farther to the extent that Funimation themselves is keeping their options - that's their statement, not mine.)
On that note, I've surfed 4chan enough to know the difference between fanservice and pornography (and before you try to line up another ad-hominem, I've been on the site since 2003.) Besides, I repeatedly state in this that it should be protected speech - that the US should not prosecute thought crime, especially something as patently vague depictions of fictional minors. I state that it's violation of the First Amendment. Maybe you missed that point in yourself admitted rage.
And it's a shame because you make a decent case otherwise. Really. Well, Negima's a non-starter as it doesn't feature frontal nudity IIRC, keeping it as you said, well clear of legal trouble since noone cares about panty shots, and the content in Shin-chan is just like Bart Simpson's junk in the Simpsons' Movie - so clearly comedic that even the most zealous American DA wouldn't touch it. But other than that, you're very right - the feRAB have fairly clear guidelines on these things via the Miller test and via precedent (barring weird contradictions and stuff like the Max Hardcore conviction.)
Where it actually breaks down is you fail take into account recent battles and convictions being made over 2D content in the US. Now, we have no idea how mild or wild the content involved in cases like Whorley might be, and while you'd think we could assume that the previous releases of content in the US should provide default legal protection, keep in mind that virtually every (if not every - I really don't have the materials to confirm this) hentai anime release in the US features a disclaimer claiming all people depicted are over the age of 18 - hitting a loophole I mentioned earlier. You can't say that because Princess 69 is out there, something that directly claims the characters are under age 18 while depicting frontal nudity is going to be ok for sure. Now, that itself may be the loophole Funi neeRAB to put it out uncut, but that itself would be changing the content/story of the show, however slightly.
Also as I said earlier in the post, FUNimation, outside of anything else anyone has said, is keeping their options open on the title themselves. They made that decision without any external input from the fandom. So, if you want to say someone may not know porn or the law, it's them as much as me. They are also the one who can make a call on it at the end of the day at that, so maybe instead trying to tear me down in a mix of weak ad-hominem and fact, maybe you could point the blade at someone who actually has an effect on the situation. I am a person on the internet, who coincidentally would rather FUNimation release it uncut (as I appreciate the rights endowed to us by the constitution) assuming it wasn't going to endanger them to do so - something FUNimation themselves thinks there is a possibility of.
After all, if you're right on it being a non-issue and a non-starter, and FUNimation thinks you're right, the title comes out uncut - a victory for free speech in America! Strikes me that you should write them a letter (yes, with a stamp and everything,) not me a post. Heck, you even have carte-blanche to backbite me and say "that know-nothing prude of a Toon Zone mod Karl Olson wouldn't know the law if it bit him on the face. Strike Witches is legal even under the PROTECT Act and no DA would ever dream of pressing charges!"
Go on, make the case to who it actually counts to make a case too. Trying to write a giant post to call me a prude is a waste of our mutual time.
Besides, you don't know me. Don't undermine a solid argument just because of that.