> @Zurich04 I totally agree i live by the Einstein quote where if you can’t explain something simply or to a level where someone can understand you don’t fully understand it yourself.
Are you really that dishonest, or prone to misrepresenting Einstein (an all too common logical fallacy practice)?
Einstein admonished to "keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler".
Common law interpretation of laws that are widely violated in practice, with impunity due to broken courts and corporate and government bad actors, is NOT simple. The paragraph of DMCA on which that was focused is, but there's no way anyone too lazy or stupid to find and read one paragraph, can be spoon fed the context and meaning.
Malicious law is drafted by treacherous, underhanded, sick fucks in power and their henchmen. Try reading the two paragraphs of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that purported to revive and expand the long since overturned Comstock Act. They were written to look like simple legislative codification conformance language, but were anything but that. They were also not obvious as to real meaning even to civil rights activists and counsel who tried to read that devious Bill, until months after its passage.
Sometimes tolerating facial hyper-simplicity is dangerous, and when other process fails, we need public drawing and quartering for officials. Lacking that, mandates for more detailed legislative justification, and bans on amendments that change meaning without new sections and clear topic headers, could be important protections even if more complexity is added.
What percentage of Americans are functionally literate enough to do such reading? I'd consider all who aren't, which is most, incompetent to be responsible adults in our democratic society, a serious paradox of competency and inclusion.
