Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 337 posts

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#151

Post by dctoedt »

bhawks wrote: post #142
dctoedt wrote: post #50

Lawyer and contract-drafting teacher here. The biggest problem with unreadable contracts is that we have too many L.O.A.D.s: Lazy Or Arrogant Drafters. (You can decide for yourself: L.O.A.D. of what?) There's a relevant Dilbert cartoon: [0] To simplify contract language, the biggest bang for the buck comes from SSSP: Short, Single-Subject Paragraphs, which are much easier to read; to review and revise during contract…

In your experience how much of this is attributable to a party of the contract trying to sneak favorable terms into the agreement? Generally I am a fan of Hanlon's razor, assume ignorance/stupidity over maliciousness, but given the nature of the subject matter I am very suspicious.

> how much of this is attributable to a party of the contract trying to sneak favorable terms into the agreement?

I've long thought there's sometimes some of that. But I preach to my students that it's not smart to try to sneak something in, buried in a "wall of words," because it presupposes that the other party's reviewer won't spot it and get pissed off.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#152

Post by derbOac »

AlbertCory wrote: post #115
cwillu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal peave is “utilize”: it's just an excuse to use the letter “z” in a sentence.

Great example. Also "access" as in "they can access health care." How about "they can receive health care"? "They can get health care"?

The case of "access" I think is partly two avoid two things. First, it's to avoid implying that the concern is about getting treatment, as opposed to being evaluated for it or being set up in the system. Second, it's to avoid implying that the potential patient's concern is about "getting" something at all, as opposed to being eligible for it, in the sense that they could get it if it were necessary.

Access as an idea is very important in healthcare equity, because it avoids a lot of the political baggage that is attached to the less resourced obtaining those resources. If you have critics that are accusing the poor of just hoarding things, you want to clarify that what they're getting is eligibility or entrance, not the resources per se. Access is about being able to get drugs if you want and need it, not getting drugs per se.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#153

Post by watwut »

AlbertCory wrote: post #123
lamontcg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last example is why reading the law is tricky and why we need both a push for plain language and a push to explain language that is necessarily very specific.

In general, yeah, but I have mixed feelings on that particular one. Claims wouldn't be much more understandable if they said: A chair, with four legs, a seat, and a back, and possibly other elements. A good explanation for obtuseness in legal language is: In normal writing, you're trying to be understood. In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood.

imo, actually they would be more understandable. Because that sentence is using words everybody knows.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#154

Post by zaphar »

torstenvl wrote: post #103

Consider the following two function definitions: int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; } int add(int a, int b) { if ((a > 0 && b > 0) && (INT_MAX - a b)) { return INT_MAX + (b - (INT_MIN - a - 1)); } else { return a + b; } } Which one expresses the intent more simply and understandably? Which one is more robust? Which one would you bet the future of your company on? I offer that, sometimes, simplicity of expression i…

Your second function does more work and covers more cases certainly but could also be written less confusingly to indicate the intent. If I encountered your second function in a code review I would at a minimum be asking you to add comments to clarify to the reader what is happening.

When the article talks about bad writing they aren't suggesting that "simpler" is better. They are suggesting that "clarity" is better. By all means cover the edge cases but don't construct the legal language so it looks obfuscated INTERCAL.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#155

Post by tunesmith »

xhevahir wrote: post #94
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

The assumption of most of the comments here is that bad writing is a matter of incompetence, but in the case of public policy I think Hanlon's Razor no longer applies. Given what we know about Texas politics and American ballot measures in general, it's quite possible that the ambiguity was introduced deliberately to give big landowners (or rather their lawyers) extra wiggle room. If that's true then the only communi…

I haven't researched it heavily, but wasn't that also true for the 2nd amendment? I doubt all the folks that ratified it agreed on its meaning.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#156

Post by oblio »

watwut wrote: post #148
oblio wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't such long phrases horrible writing, kind of by default?

You can have long readable phrases. The long phrase is bad rule is just beginner helper, nothing more nothing less.

Almost nothing can save a phrase that's 100+ words long[1], no matter who you are.

[1] With some exceptions, such as enumerations.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#157

Post by AstralStorm »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #125
zo1 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever wrote or approved that should be fired. Whether they are a lawyer or politician, it matters not. To parse it one needs to write it out, draw brackets around concepts, and then add lines between the potentially-grouped concepts because there is so much in-between that you forget it all by the time you get to the end.

I don't think the wording is the problem. It says what it does. The problem is in the effect of the law. Article 8 Section 1-b (d) says that an elderly or disabled person's property taxes (on their home) can't be increased if the money would go to public schools. It also establishes the concept that their current (unincreasable) educational property taxes are transferable property; they can take this "limitation" wit…

I suspect it's a specificity thing to override federal law that would allow such redirection of funds as described without an explicit law.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#158

Post by thaumasiotes »

AstralStorm wrote: post #157
thaumasiotes wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the wording is the problem. It says what it does. The problem is in the effect of the law. Article 8 Section 1-b (d) says that an elderly or disabled person's property taxes (on their home) can't be increased if the money would go to public schools. It also establishes the concept that their current (unincreasable) educational property taxes are transferable property; they can take this "limitation" wit…

I suspect it's a specificity thing to override federal law that would allow such redirection of funds as described without an explicit law.

There is no redirection of funds involved...

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#159

Post by thrown_22 »

swayvil wrote: post #43
thrown_22 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The top comment in this other HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32888730 I don't get it. That post is great. The lead is at the top. It's highly visible and you don't need to read anything else if you don't want to. The rest is just a long form explanation of why they like physical books.

How in any sane world was your parent comment (by Victerius) worthy of death?

???
Post reply on HN