Comment Same story (Score 2) 60
This happens all the time. Legal definitions get changed to no longer reflect the dictionary definition. I still remember when news organizations had to walk back on editorials calling trump a traitor for the Ukrainian extortion racket, because lawyers were mentioning how the legal definition was very narrow. Too me, unless you are specifically referring to the law, you should be able to say a dictionary definition term without fear of reprisal, even if it's an opinion.
"Charities" by the IRS definition aren't necessarily "charitable" by people's understanding of the term. Insider trading is legal, if there isn't a financial quid pro quo, from my understanding. I'm no lawyer so correct me if wrong but I remember listening to a story that basically said as much e.g. I think, if an executive tells a friend information without getting anything back (except maybe similar info from the friend, sometime later) then they aren't criminally pursued. Again, if someone knows exactly, it would be interesting to learn even if wrong.
Even, if I'm not correct in my examples, I know there are tons out there. They corrupt laws. One is by changing definitions and another is by using laws meant to protect people against them or for corporations (e.g. 14th amendment/corporate personhood)