Is adding 'SEC. 222' the only thing the law accomplished, and it did nothing else and set no precedents and had no consequences? Does objection to a bad overall

Is adding 'SEC. 222' the only thing the law accomplished, and it did nothing else and set no precedents and had no consequences? Does objection to a bad overall law mean you must then refrain forever from using any aspect of it? Do the many bad parts of the DMCA mean the EFF must never defend any website under its safe-harbor provision? Does use of an obscure provision justify as wildly hyperbolic a title as 'Orwellian as fuck'? You know what's Orwellian? China and Russia abducting and assassinating journalists and bankrolling enormous online troll armies and censorship. That is 'Orwellian as fuck'. > Both have their pros and cons, but you really can have only one. Actually, you don't.