Let's try that "unfair" test against someone standing outside my door, opening and reading my credit card statements.
First test - If they don't use my credit card number to buy anything, I guess the FTC says, no harm, no foul, right? That can't be right.
Second test - How can I reasonably avoid an intruder tearing sealed letters open?
Third test - Hard to imagine "countervailing benefits" for violating my privacy and security, unless they see all those charges for sex toys, and give me 20% discount coupons for Clorox Sex Toy Wipes.
No, it doesn't play any better for old-school (postal) data communications than for HTML/SSL... except for one thing: It's a federal offense to even touch someone else's mail, likely for the same security and privacy reasons.
As a resident, I can tell you that the prevailing attitude at county levels is "You're not telling ME what to do, you miserable flea." Most members of the Board of Chosen Freeloaders are addicted to the political patronage life; four-color brochures describing their multitudinous good works arrive often, with design, printing and postage paid for by... me. Quite rewarding.
However, life is never that simple. Ms. Renna elevates the job of "vocal critic" to new heights, and cuts a pretty abrasive figure... tough for the citizenry to support, especially because the atrocities she wails over never really rise to a level of mild interest.
It's the perfect storm... profoundly annoying gadfly vs. entitled, opaque, bully government. But there's a way to treat the squeaky wheel, and lying about bogus trademarks ain't it.
Frustrating, because yes, I'd like to dismiss the anti-neutrality "template respondents" as not valid... but that's because of my personal opinions and raging cynicism.
In the US, even the pre-Internet US, the time-honored method of registering support or opposition has been a prewritten form letter addressed to "The Hon. ________"... fill in the blanks. Or worse yet, one old measure was "the White House switchboard"; you'd dial a publicly-available number and tell an operator what you thought of such-and-such a policy, and she or he would presumably stroke-count it and pass that on to policymakers. And the strokes all looked exactly alike... insufficiently personalized to be considered valid?