Hacker News Reader

I envy your gift of statutory clarity. It isn't clear to me. And I can't imagine I'm the only lawyer who can spot the squishy bits of this legislation ripe for manipulation.

The three paragraphs you've quoted are "or" elements. A person need only violate one of the three to be criminally liable. Paragraph 2 is broad enough to include just about anything.

View on HN

Since you're a lawyer, please clarify for me one part so that I can understand. The paragraphs are presented as:

1 - condition 1;

2 - condition 2; or

3 - condition 3.

Does this mean that condition 1 should be applied all the time (1 and 2 _or_ 1 and 3) or (1 or 2 or 3) in order to be liable?

1 or 2 or 3.

As the other person commented, I read it as 1 or 2 or 3 though I'll admit this bill has exceptionally poor drafting. Typically to avoid that sort of confusion the "chapeau" would say something like "it shall be unlawful for a person to do one or more of the following" or "it shall be unlawful for a person to do (all of) the following".

You can see an example of drafting for (1 and 2) or 3 in paragraph 4 of the definitions section to give you a better idea of how the language and structure would differ in this section if it were intended to be read as (1 and 2) or (1 and 3).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com