Hacker News Reader

Comment by lelandfe | Hacker News Reader

> Most other countries in the Anglosphere have been through a "plain english" language push in both contract & legislation

The US has seen big pushes for plain English. Nixon, Carter, Clinton and, most recently, Obama have all championed this. It has been federal law since 2010 for all executive branch agencies to use plain language in any official document they produce, for instance. Similar desires in law and contracts exist, though I'm less aware of that.

See: https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-langua...

And: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/

View on HN

The US really does lag behind on this one; the push for plain English was phenomenally more successful in other Anglophone common law jurisdictions.

Having practised as a lawyer in one of them, I can confirm much contemporary American legal writing seems absurd and even comical. There’s something amateurish about it; like a layman trying to ad-lib some law talk at a party by cobbling together some obscure law terms he’s overheard.

“The first party of the aforementioned party - THIS PART IS IN CAPS - will henceforth wheretofore undertake that by no later than St Swithen’s Day - MORE CAPS MEANS MORE LAW - ”

I feel like this happens in Canada too because federal (and lots but not all provincial (“state”)) law/websites/guides has to be bilingual and they’ll have equal force. If the translations don’t mean exactly the same thing, hilarity ensues!

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25...

Tangent: Montreal francinization laws are such a pain in the ass.

On the other hand, if it’s been championed since Nixon, that means his problem is not solved.

Nixon was the last “liberal” president. Not really surprising no meaningful reform has been pushed through since him

Yeah, I doubt it ever will be.

Reading some of these before/afters gives me hope, though: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/

Before:

> This form will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process, have been given an opportunity to review the applicant’s submission.

After

> If your State requires an opportunity to review your application, use this form to certify that you have done so. Include the form in your application.

What does "requiring an opportunity to review" mean? :o

Does the process include a review by the state or not? If yes it's mandatory, right? Not an "opportunity", and it's not just a "movie review" review, right? So it means state needs to approve it, no?

So shouldn't this be phrased as "include government permit here (whether it's applicable for you, see how your state reacted to Executive Order 12372)"?

Yet the references you give are super recent. I guess that highlights my point somewhat?

This has been an issue since before Clinton (ie before my commercial experience) at the least.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com