I'm following posts up the chain to 2012 but I think I'll comment on this anyway:

I don't think it's correct to say "its content was crafted to remain within the bounds of the laws, but was judged to be illegal on the grounds of intent and indirect implication". The law doesn't say "using X phrase is illegal, and if you don't use X phrase, you're in the clear". It actually uses the word "intent" to describe what is illegal; intent and implication is inherently a part of the law, and someone who is convicted based on intent and implication isn't convicted despite the law, he's convicted according to the law.

Furthermore, even if it didn't say "intent", lots of laws are interpreted according to intent and implication. If a bank robbery law says you can't threaten to kill someone to get money, and the bank robber points a loaded gun at the bank teller, and the teller gives him money without him having to say a word, he doesn't get to say "the law requies a threat and I didn't say anything, so there's no threat"--he made an implicit threat.