Thanks pcfixer. The current regime continues promulgating things that conflict with each other, one sub-para to the next (Congress has no monopoly on that). It is sufficient for them to kick the can down the road with enough obstacles in the way of its citizens such that prior restraint on speech is accomplished under threat of prison sentence. While they seem to be benevolent in their new "definition" of public domain, what is chilling is what they propose to call a "defense article(item)".
Direct link to their proposed ass-covering. (Warning: Bring your mental whiteboard.)
In the end, it's ok if it's in the public domain - but it isn't legally in the public domain unless they say so. Can they support this POS in court? I doubt it; but it seems they can get the same result by tying a peasant up for year$$$ if they cast their eye on you.