Well, I think I've tried to answer that already, in the sense that the starting point is that the court looks at the condition before it. The condition says to either consider restricting the use of the Internet or other digital network, or, as has been proposed, specified by the court.... The court is going to interpret it. It could use exactly the same words. It could say, in this instance, that the appropriate condition would be against the Internet, period, or it could specify.
If you had, for example, the motion...if it was adopted and that language was in the condition and an offender reoffended and tried to argue, “Well, I wasn't specifically told not to use this”, I guess you would have an argument before the court: is there a common understanding that the Internet includes this or does not include that? Is it possible to have that...? Yes. It is possible to have that argument.
Again, I think the Internet has more of a common understanding; there is a dictionary understanding there, but as I say, the intention here was not to compound that, but to provide direction for a court to turn its mind to it.