Is the article making much of an argument? It's a wikipedia article and is therefore written in an encyclopedic tone. Do you disagree that illegal numbers exist?
It has an "encyclopedic tone" but that does not mean it is objectively correct or makes a sensible argument. It is not the number itself that is illegal. What would that even mean?
Humans doing certain things with certain intentions can be illegal.
The article links to "illegal numbers", which weasely states "if communicating a specific set of information is illegal in some way, then the number may be illegal as well". Note the "may", and the only references seem to be pure speculation.
Some people argue any kind of copyright and IP rights should be abolished, but who would argue it should be completely legal to phone in a bomb threat because "it is really just a number represented as sound"?
Well yes, the notion of illegal numbers is a construct of the silly argument presented. You can decompose anything proscribed into the elements that make it up and then try to claim the elements are ipso facto proscribed.
Mens rea, for example, is really referring to sequences of electrical impulses in your brain, so again by the line of argument there is a physical phenomenon that is criminial.
The article links to "illegal numbers", which weasely states "if communicating a specific set of information is illegal in some way, then the number may be illegal as well". Note the "may", and the only references seem to be pure speculation.
Some people argue any kind of copyright and IP rights should be abolished, but who would argue it should be completely legal to phone in a bomb threat because "it is really just a number represented as sound"?