(As the poster you're responding to) I don't disagree, but I also see that those who are opposed to this decision are inclined to frame it as the courts re-defi

(As the poster you're responding to) I don't disagree, but I also see that those who are opposed to this decision are inclined to frame it as the courts re-defining the word sex (check how Fox News covers this over the next few days). You can argue "it's not a redefinition" and cite the courts decision as basis, but someone who wanted a different opinion is likely to say "the court came to that decision because they redefined the word." My counter to that persons argument is whether we call it redefinition or not courts exist to interpret things, and there is nothing new in them doing so here and now. That's their job, and that's how we got the concept of eavesdropping.