After the controversial Gloobyent vs. Mooblechh case, the Supreme Court recommended implementing a nonambiguous definition for the terms "appropriate" and "inappropriate" or, preferably, a complete revamp of clauses 1a and 1b.

During the subsequent Mooblechh vs. Gloobyent case, the mind of the Chairman of the Supreme Court was thoroughly boggled, resulting in the termination of the trial, unprecedented public outrage and a transient crisis in the justice system.

Excerpt from the transcript of the Gloobyent vs. Mooblechh case:

Prosecutor Grumuffle: Were you or were you not twiddling the Magical item?

Lextor the Vextor: That depends what you mean by twiddling....

Prosecutor Grumuffle: I mean simply the legal definition of which we are all aware. You were engaged in activities that were inappropriate for an item that was not expressly designed for entertainment purposes.

Lextor the Vextor: (Giggles) Well, that depends on what you mean by "entertainment purposes" (giggles).

Prosecutor Grumuffle: (Grumuffles) Clearly, I mean that it was designed in such a way that it was inappropriate to twiddle it in such a manner. Please answer the question, Mr. Vextor.

Defender Pufflewump: Objection your honor, the Prosecutor's statements are circular. He is trying to entrap my client in an infinite regress, and so this entire proceding must be ignored and stricken from the record in accordance with Section 2 of Item Law 323.

Judge Wimpleclump: I believe that that section refers to tautologies and not infinite regresses...

Defender Pufflewump: With all due respect, your honor, the circularity involved in this infinite regress entails a tautology, regardless of the additional imperative content of the item law.

Judge Wimpleclump: Objection overruled. The statements are clearly non-identical. Proceed, Mr. Grumuffle.

Prosecutor Grumuffle: Thank you your honor. I will proceed more carefully. Mr. Vextor, weren't you engaged in activites that are inappropriate for any item that is not made expressly for purposes that would render it appropriate for activites that are inappropriate for any item that is not made expressly for purposes that would render it appropriate for activites that are inappropriate for....er...such an item?

Lextor the Vextor: Um. I suppose, maybe, I must've been by definition? (giggles uneasily)

Defender Pufflewump: Objection, your honor. My client was clearly confused into mistaking the regress for a tautology.

Judge Wimpleclump: Actually, I'm not so sure that it wasn't a logical tautology anymore. At any rate, an infinite regress can certainly be understood as a grammatical tautology, which would serve the same end legally...

Prosecutor Grumuffle: Objection, your honor, with all due respect, the second Section of Law 323 would be negated anyway, since if the first section actually is a tautology, Section 3 requires that section 2 be ignored...

Judge Wimpleclump: Overruled? Is there another regress in there at another level of abstraction? Would that constitute another implicit grammatical tautology? Can I call a brief recess, please...