[Linux-aus] Some Anti-Harassment Policies considered harmful

[elliott-brennan]

Hi David,

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

Legally-specific language is perfectly fine when 
writing an Act of law or framing an application, 
appeal etc to a court (even then clarity if 
preferred to obfuscation and academic nitpicking 
which can often be seen as legalese by many).

One of the things about the law (and IANAL) that I 
do like is that you can trace back meanings and be 
quite specific about what you intend your written 
words to mean. You can usually (though not always) 
ensure that what you write is what you mean and 
that it is understood by others who have studied 
in the same area. It can be quite good fun at times.

However, Plain English is required for policies 
and is seen as a requirement in governments around 
Australia (and in other countries such as the UK).

http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/publications/plain_en/sofar.htm

http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/grc/plain_english_guide.pdf

http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=5E88553B364FF742CA25714C000696CA

Clear English is also becoming a requirement 
within the law and unnecessary pontification (some 
is required just for the humour I reckon) is 
frequently frowned upon - unless it comes from the 
magistrate - and then you have to wait until the 
appeal :)

Regards,

Patrick

-- 
www.techfriend.com.au
Home computer software training and hardware 
assistance

www.mercuryvideos.com.au
Stylishly edited DVDs of your photos and videos

On 21/02/11 10:45, David Lloyd wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> The reason we *have* legalese is precisely because
> *plain English* laws and policies are so easily
> misinterpreted...it is kind of circular!
>
> DSL