The whole purpose of defining words for a COMMON meaning is SURVIVAL: no means no, run means run, fire means fire, stop means stop. Its universal, no matter the situation in any country.The whole purpose of defining words in statutes is to minimize a billion “it means this, no it means that, no it means the other.” Let’s say you picked another word like distributes or shares and did not provide a specific meaning. Endless and irregular interpretation battles (“no, yer honor, “shares” in today’s world means hit the share button/arrow and it’s misleading to interpret that more broadly so the statute should be declared unconstitutionally vague”) and some judge is going to agree but some other judge won’t - so then you have years of irregular outcomes until it goes up on appeal after appeal - much of which could have been avoided by clear definition in the statute in the first place. Moreover, specific definitions, even if atypical for casual use, prevent legislative intent being completely subverted when other jurisdictions have different interpretations of an undefined word.
Tl; dr: the word and its definition is perfectly clear and unobjectionable.
Or it should.
Not the level or type of laws, just the meaning of WORDS [platoon kneel]
Like trying to warn others of a predator: him, her, they, them, obese, black, white, ugly, pretty, tall, short, midget, hairy, bald, albino, old, young.
We are done for
Last edited:
