zlacker

Nice comparison. And also certain political factions in the USA try to hide the shamefulness of laws they propose by giving them names that are directly opposed to what they'll do.

The "Defense of Marriage Act" comes to mind. There was one so bad that a judge ordered the authors to change it, but I can't find it at the moment.

>>Respec+(OP)
All political factions are guilty of this. Patriot Act, Inflation Reduction Act, Affordable Care Act, etc.

>>Respec+(OP)
This is just a normal practice in the US.

Defense of Marriage Act is actually an exception. The people supporting it honestly thought it was defending marriage, and the supportive public knew exactly what it did.

It passed with a veto proof majority a few weeks before a presidential election, received tons of press, and nobody was confused about what it did.

Whereas the Inflation Reduction Act had absolutely nothing to do with reducing inflation.

>>rlt+Q2
USA PATRIOT Act was an acronym, actual name was Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

>>Respec+(OP)
Actually, that's my mistake. The examples I was thinking of turned out to be one and the same: It was a California proposition originally titled the "California Marriage Protection Act." That was the one where a judge forced it to be renamed to "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment"

>>rlt+Q2
Eh, the ACA is the only reason I have "affordable" insurance. In the end it might have been more accurate to say, "Marginally Less of a Rip-Off Care Act."

>>pyuser+8g
You think they came up with the long name and THEN were astonished to discover that it spells "PATRIOT"?

>>kibibu+1B
Yep. That's for sure a revisionist definition.

See also: "Digital Versatile Disc"

>>pyuser+Sf
> Defense of Marriage Act is actually an exception. The people supporting it honestly thought it was defending marriage

Seems arbitrary. There is nothing about that act that even borders on defending marriage, and people supporting it know that. It's a comic misnomer.

>>Capric+Za1
It’s defending when you view gay people as subhuman animals.

>>gurume+yi1
It was, and is, absolutely clear to everyone what this bill was about.

If it had been called the “Support Healthcare for Veterans Act” or even “Interstate Marriage Consistency Act” it would have been dubious.

But the 70% of Americans who opposed gay marriage correctly understood its meaning, as did the gay rights activists who saw gay marriage as unobtainable.

This wasn’t a confusing or misleading title, as is evidenced by the fact that nobody was confused or misled.

>>gurume+yi1
Not all people who subscribe to the definition of marriage as put forth in the Defense of Marriage Act also believe that gay people are subhuman animals.

>>Respec+(OP)
Citizens United....

>>gurume+yi1
Technically it only requires you view marriage as being between a man and a woman.

>>pyuser+Mt2
I think people weren't confused because its details were covered repeatedly by the news, not because the name was clear. I, for instance, figured a name called "The Defense of Marriage" act would be defending everyone's right to be married. It does the opposite. So count me as someone that considers that name misleading.