It seems to me that the Reason article is using a definition of "property" that's different (and more general) from the legal definition that's being relied on

It seems to me that the Reason article is using a definition of "property" that's different (and more general) from the legal definition that's being relied on in this case. A better term for what property appears to mean as far as the arguments in this case are concerned might be "tangible property" or something like that.