You've confused and confabulated like 11 different things there. None of what you said has anything to do with either what I said or what the law says.
The way this currently exists is basically unenfoceable because the critical terms are not even defined. It's not even ultimately intelligible, which is a prerequisite to enforcing, or even being able to tell where it does and does not apply, and whether some covered entity is or is not in compliance.
> You've confused and confabulated like 11 different things there.
Feel free to elaborate. As it stands that's nothing more than name calling.
I wasn't speaking to the current CA or CO proposed implementations (which I don't support as it happens). I responded specifically to your statement:
> It's not that it's difficult, it's that it's arbitrary and a form of commanded speech or action.
My response being that I think it's acceptable for the regulator to require action under certain limited circumstances.