Which reminds me of this:
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' 1957
I am reminded of the Supreme Court case where a guy made a politically based DVD that targeted a Democrat, and was prohibited from marketing it during an election cycle which was also the holiday season when he expected to make sales. When the case got to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Justices were questioning the government attorney and asked something to the effect of: “Would these laws allow you to censor a book or other media?” and she said “Technically, yes, but we would never do that.”
Scalia (to his eternal credit) leaned over the bench and said something like: “We are not in the practice of putting discretion like this in the hands of bureaucrats!”
I forget the case, but it illustrates what he was trying to prevent, but it is so ingrained with so much over-legislation that it can be, and often is used at the discretion of the government agency.