Those definitions are fiction not founded by any law on the book. Nor in any jurisprudence - they are bullshit propaganda and are like citing "admirality law" b

Those definitions are fiction not founded by any law on the book. Nor in any jurisprudence - they are bullshit propaganda and are like citing "admirality law" by a sovereign citizen - proof of being actively incredibly wrong. The courts have already ruled that even with right of way the government has no right to content standards on cable - now it magically is going to apply to non-excluding websites? Utter nonsense.