[semimojo]

My standard is "significance" and "threat potential." Just as it's difficult to accurately pin down some specific number regarding market penetration constituting "monopoly" so too is it difficult to say this value or that value will constitute an existential threat to the nation through control of communications.

That sounds good but we're a nation of laws.

Laws have to be clearly defined and unambiguous.

You're describing something akin to "common sense" which is a horrible standard to use when wielding the power of the state.

Can you name another area where the laws are as fuzzy as what you're advocating?

[DiogenesLamp]

Laws have to be clearly defined and unambiguous.

A task at which many of them fail. This is why it sometimes takes lawyers and judges years to "interpret" a law.

Can you name another area where the laws are as fuzzy as what you're advocating?

All of them. Just pick a subject, and the laws are fuzzy. This is why clever lawyers can exploit them. It isn't easy writing a law that cannot be interpreted incorrectly. In fact, it's virtually impossible.

Even if you can write a law that is clear and impossible to misunderstand or misinterpret, you then have to prove that it doesn't run afoul of a whole lot of other "law" (such as the 14th amendment which means whatever the judges want it to mean at the time) and therefore gets it ruled "unconstitutional."