3 ms·
> every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense. Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate l
by gnicholas 3y ago
> every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense.
Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms. This is especially true when the substituted word sounds like the word most lawyers would use. It makes the author sound like he doesn't understand that this is a term of art. It might add variety to the piece, but when I'm reading reporting on legal matters, I'd rather see terms of art used throughout, rather than have the author "mix it up" with these sorts of substitutions.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Sure, but when you're reporting on a legal development, it makes sense to use the appropriate legal terms. If you are reporting for a lay audience it makes sense, esepcially in a headline, to use the common English that best conveys the impact. This is true regardless of the subject matter. > I'd rather see terms of art used throughout That's a valid aesthetic preference, but failure to align with it doesn't make a headline accurately describing the facts into an inaccurate reference to something that doesn't exist.
- SilasX 3y agoLayperson here. “Claim of impunity” is muuuch more confusing than “claim of immunity”. The former sounds like they’re claiming that, in practice, they don’t get prosecuted (cf. “the gangs commit crimes with impunity”), rather than that they legally should not be prosecuted.
- gnicholas 3y agoAs SilasX points out, using the phrase "claim of impunity" could also confuse laypeople about what the legal term of art is. But more importantly, no one ever claimed impunity. You could say they "cannot do x with impunity following this decision" perhaps, but you cannot say that the TSA "claimed impunity" — which they did not ever do.