On Wed, 2 May 2007, Andrew Lih wrote:
I'm surprised there isn't already a CSD for "blatantly illegal material".
Yes, that's what was most frustrating in debating this on DRV. People were going by the letter of the CSD law and not using the gray matter.
"Blatantly illegal material" is not left out of CSD because it's so obvious that it goes without saying; it's left out because it's so non-obvious that you could never get consensus to put it in. You're welcome to try adding it. If it gets accepted (or rejected for being too obvious to include), I'd be surprised.
(I'd try adding it myself, right now, but since I don't think it's a good idea, I'd be violating [[WP:POINT]].)