You were responding argumentatively to people who were clearly making a normative argument about the trial conviction (and also blaming the CFAA for it); and it seemed like you were making a contrary normative claim about that conviction; if you were intending merely to argue that the actual structure of the CFAA didn't support the conviction so that the blame-attachment was misplaced, that didn't come across clearly to me.
But if that's what you were saying, then, yeah, there's nothing really to argue about.
