To the article's point, I think the discussion centers around a good definition of "the rules." The case the article makes is that the law uses a deliberately v

To the article's point, I think the discussion centers around a good definition of "the rules." The case the article makes is that the law uses a deliberately vague definition to wield against any "foreign adversary" (China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela.) I'm not personally against some sort of action in this regard, but would prefer stricter definitions to be applied to avoid abuse of power.