That argument doesn't matter thought. He didn't say "a request can only be considered malformed by mcherm's definition of the term if...".

I could say "the sky is blue" and you could say "demonstrably false; the sky is personally red because I'm wearing colour-altering sunglasses".

What he meant is obviously "a request can only be considered malformed (as defined by the commonly accepted definition of malformed) .."

Your argument is fallacious. The courts will use common definitions of terms and have regard for context.

However, what you're arguing about is even more pointless. The CFAA doesn't depend on the term "malformed" in any way, but on the term "authorized access".

Your first sentence is not similar at all to your second; they're demonstrating first a blatant disregard for common definitions of terms, followed by praise of such common definitions.