zlacker

Scroll down on that site, literally. Words have more that one meaning.

Here's what I get from MacOS's dictionary: institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).

I can also be pedantic and insist that, even under the strict interpretation you are vouching for ...

>Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable.

... is a correct argument.

>>morale+(OP)
If this is really your hill to die on, go for it. Using “prosecute” to refer to civil litigation is not standard English in any dialect circa 1850.

>>JumpCr+at
Easy peasy, yes/no answer.

From your understanding, is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?

>>morale+nx
> is looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) prosecutable or not?

No. And if a lawmaker claimed they would like it to be, and then claimed they meant civilly litigible, they’d be labelled dishonest. (Even if it was an honest mistake.)

>>JumpCr+Wy
>Looking/sounding like somebody else (even if its famous) is not prosecutable.

Great, then we agree. :^)

>>morale+uN
Yeah, I agree too. It's not prosecutable... But it is sue-able.

So, to return to your original point: Did you have one?