Language is a funny thing. It changes over time, and the exact meaning of a word can drift to become more broad or more specific, or something else completely. That confusion can spill over into a courtroom, when the exact wording of a law is debated. Does a more modern interpretation of those words change the intention of those who originally passed the law? And how do we determine exact meanings- by the current dictionary, the generally-understood meaning at the time the law was written, or how the wording of the law is understood today? It depends on how you look at it, or even more importantly, who looks at it. Dr. Erica Brozovsky (previously at Neatorama) breaks down the legal battle over words, and bfings us some court cases where a definition made all the difference. All I could think of while watching this is a quote: "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Commenting on Neatorama will earn you NeatoPoints!