How much of this is the old political trick of creating a law that is overly broad and nuanced only to come back and refine it to something slightly more specific later? Perhaps the plan all along has been to create something that will cause outrage so that people don't complain when the next version comes around that's only slightly better, but still worse off than before.
That was broadly true of British obscenity laws for decades (centuries?). You couldn't publish anything that was obscene or that could disturb people but just what that meant was poorly defined and pretty much up to judges and juries.
I actually kinda like that typically British approach though since it allows tastes to move with the times without actually rewriting any laws. What's "obscene" in 2013 is not the same as in 1940, for example, but it does take court cases to set precedents.
