Why precise language matters

I was reading about a new bill that's going through congress right now that is aimed at curtailing cyber-bullying. Stepping away from whether bullying in general and cyber bullying specifically should be criminalized, what really struck me about this particular bill was the critique that it was "broadly worded" and could be interpreted in ways other than the so called intent of the authors. The specific language of the bill can be found here, and to my as-yet-untrained legal reasoning it does seem to provide a bit more leeway than Rep. Linda Sanchez seems to suggest is the intent. The original cnn.com article rightly points out that elected officials are not generally the most tech-savvy bunch, Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens, and I realize that lawyers make their hay on interpretation of "loosely" written laws, but it would be nice if the people making our laws understood what they were talking about.

This article brought to my mind a larger (in the Billy universe anyway) issue of poorly written rules, and the great Rules as Written (RAW) vs. Rules as Intended (RAI) debate. As previously mentioned throughout this blog, I regularly play tabletop strategy games known as Warhammer and Warhammer 40k. These games have many strengths, but clarity in the rules is not one of them. The designers of the games excuse this by saying that the players should follow RAI instead of RAW. Their logic for this is that it should be clear in all situations what the "intended" outcome is, and where the players are unable to readily reach an agreement they should effectively flip a coin to figure out what happens in that particular case. The problem with this approach to the rules is that it assumes you play the game with the same 3-5 people every time and that house rules can be developed over the course of your friendship to cover the odd corner cases that sometimes come up.

The problem with this strategy is that it breaks down when people do not have regular opponents. I might always play using certain conventions (forests are infinitely tall in Warhammer being one of those), but players in Chicago might play differently (use true model's eye view to determine how tall the trees are). Both of these interpretations are equally supported in the rules, and it rarely is an issue because we are geographically separated enough that the conflict doesn't ever come up. However, on my cross country road trip to Law School this summer I plan on stopping at various locations and playing these games. I know that there will be multiple instances where my opponent and I are going to have differing interpretations of the rules, and both of us will, strictly speaking, be correct. A properly written rule set would provide us with the means to settle these disputes. Sadly, Games Workshop, the company that makes Warhammer and Warhammer 40k, does not seem to care about my particular plight, and I will undoubtedly go to my grave harping on these same issues.

Taking this example out of the nerd-o-sphere and into the "Real World", there is an unfortunate similarity between Games Workshop and Rep. Sanchez's view. Both assume that the intent of the rule/law are apparent, and that their interpretation of that law is the only one that could ever come about. Sadly, this is not the case. Yes, actions with "the intent is to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person" covers the actions of a cyber bully, but it could also be argued that they cover your average Internet forum poster. Anyone who has read the comments section of Deadspin will know that they pretty much only post with the intent to intimidate or harass the subject of the post. I don't think Rep. Sanchez believes that all Deadspin commenters should be imprisoned, but as written, that is what her bill will allow for.

There is no great solution to this problem as constituted. Not because I can't outline a solution (write clear, well defined rules/laws) but rather because the people in charge of writing those laws need to have their points of view radically altered before such a solution becomes feasible. Ultimately this is my argument for having smart people hold elected office, and why I'll always vote for the smart person I disagree with over the moron who shares my views. A smart person will be able to write laws whose consequences, while I might disagree with, are intended. I'm much more afraid of the unintended consequences of a poorly written law whose intent I agree with.

As always, please feel free to sound off in the comments section, but be careful, you could be committing a felony!