3 ms·

I would rather laws continue to be written with precision and for the government to have an information portal describing the relevant legal obligations in plai

I would rather laws continue to be written with precision and for the government to have an information portal describing the relevant legal obligations in plain language. Forcing laws themselves to be written in plain language is a recipe for disaster. Imagine the tax code was subject to that constraint, for example. Corporations would have a field day finding loopholes. Software can also have a huge impact on our lives and I don't think anyone would insist that software must be written so as to be easily understood by people who are not software developers.

josefritzishere 2y ago
As someone who works with legal language regularly, the notion that it's designed for clarity is hilarious. It's often constructed deliberately to obsfucate its purpose. Plain clear language with defined terms is legally binding and difficult to circumvent.
- graypegg 2y ago
  I can understand that, but I don't know if legal texts would be more explicit given simpler language. You can bake ambiguity into any text you want. "Simple english" will naturally just have less words than legalese, since that's the thing people find so daunting about it. Doesn't that mean that either A) words will have multiple overlapping meanings or B) entire phrases will have to be used to explain what is normally 1 word? Either case leaves a lot of room for "offensive lawyering". Defined legal terms is just what we have now, but starting over.
- NoboruWataya 2y ago
  I specifically said precision and not clarity, which is not the same. The thing is, though, that legal language is not "designed" for anything, in fact it is not "designed" at all. As for being constructed deliberately to obfuscate its purpose, all I can say is that that's not my experience and it seems like a pretty self-defeating aim to me. For legal language to have any value at all, you have to be reasonably certain that a court would give effect to your intended meaning, and the more you obfuscate your intentions, the bigger the risk that it will be construed in an unintended way by a court. > Plain clear language with defined terms is legally binding and difficult to circumvent. As soon as you introduce defined terms, it is instantly less plain and less clear.

josefritzishere 2y ago

As someone who works with legal language regularly, the notion that it's designed for clarity is hilarious. It's often constructed deliberately to obsfucate its purpose. Plain clear language with defined terms is legally binding and difficult to circumvent.

graypegg 2y ago
I can understand that, but I don't know if legal texts would be more explicit given simpler language. You can bake ambiguity into any text you want. "Simple english" will naturally just have less words than legalese, since that's the thing people find so daunting about it. Doesn't that mean that either A) words will have multiple overlapping meanings or B) entire phrases will have to be used to explain what is normally 1 word? Either case leaves a lot of room for "offensive lawyering". Defined legal terms is just what we have now, but starting over.
NoboruWataya 2y ago
I specifically said precision and not clarity, which is not the same. The thing is, though, that legal language is not "designed" for anything, in fact it is not "designed" at all. As for being constructed deliberately to obfuscate its purpose, all I can say is that that's not my experience and it seems like a pretty self-defeating aim to me. For legal language to have any value at all, you have to be reasonably certain that a court would give effect to your intended meaning, and the more you obfuscate your intentions, the bigger the risk that it will be construed in an unintended way by a court. > Plain clear language with defined terms is legally binding and difficult to circumvent. As soon as you introduce defined terms, it is instantly less plain and less clear.