No Constitutional Speech Review Ground

The provision lists only four narrow grounds for courts to overturn Division decisions (60(5)), but omits explicit constitutional review for freedom of speech violations. While ground (c) permits setting aside decisions if "the communication or information was permissible under the Act," it's unclear whether this encompasses constitutional speech protections or only statutory interpretation. This ambiguity is critical because the Division—whose Director is appointed by the President (14)—has initial adjudicatory power over speech using broad, discretionary definitions of prohibited content. Without an explicit constitutional review ground, speakers cannot be confident courts will rigorously scrutinize whether Division sanctions violated their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and press freedom, creating a chilling effect on protected speech.