Of course, but the fact that they redundantly spell out "radio" and "television" (as though they aren't the same) makes me think we have a good chance of convincing a jury that "light" is something completely different.
And the prosecution will spend an entire day trotting out some physicist in front of the jury saying why light and radio are the same thing. I’d love to hear the defense question the physicist about why they are wrong
I think the defense would handle that pretty easily. Question the physicist until things are confusing, get him to repeatedly state that he is not an expert on the law or legal definitions (he is a physicist) and leave the jury thinking "Well, I didn't understand that guy, I'm sure it was some physics thing, but doesn't apply to the law."
