I saw on the news that the Supreme Court said that the high court was ‘overly reliant on the dictionary definition of words’ does that have implications elsewhere?
Posted this on another thread, I'm not concerned about this paragraph due to what else was said in the ruling.
rightsinfo.org/stocker-v-stocker-is-a-victory-for-domestic-abuse-survivors/
Rights info have run a story on this today
I note the following from the article:
This is the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled on the manner in which people write and read social media posts.
It is clear from their ruling that social media posts are not to be treated in the same way as, for example, a traditional newspaper article.
The Court was critical of the approach taken in the lower courts, which had “failed to conduct a realistic exploration of how the ordinary reader of the Facebook post would have understood it.”
In the ruling, Lord Kerr insisted that context was always key – especially when it comes to social media.
“The fact that this was a Facebook post is critical. The advent of the 21st century has brought with it a new class of reader: the social media user,” he wrote.
“The judge tasked with deciding how a Facebook post or a tweet on Twitter would be interpreted by a social media user must keep in mind the way in which such posting and tweets are made and read.”
This is a significant and reassuring development. The Supreme Court’s approach to the realities of communication in an age of social media is not entirely without its flaws, but it ought to be lauded nonetheless.
Their judgment is not only a victory for the victims and survivors of domestic abuse but a victory for freedom of speech online.
Thus if a dictionary definition also happens to be the most commonly understood definition in common language usage, a dictionary definition would still be important.
This is why resisting language bastardisation and the growth of euphemisms is highly important.
What is the common use language for cutting off male genitalia?