> Is it difficult to find without specialist knowledge?
It's not _easy_ to find but I don't think that's the problem.
There are a few problem that expertise probably solves.
There are often exceptions throughout such laws so it's less simple to say what the law covers than it is to give an example and test if the law covers it.
There is often a lot of seemingly subjective legalese in law that is actually an objective term. Like, "may", "can", "should" that has to be understood.
Then there is language that is actually subjective that laypeople often get wrong because they push those words to extremes to create an absurd example. It's unclear to a lot of people if it's legally okay to do that. Most of the time, that's what a judge is for and that's why different judges give different interpretations. Lay people have a hard time defining the edges off "(practically) all judges would interpret this way" and "(practically) no judges would interpret that way".
It's not _easy_ to find but I don't think that's the problem.
There are a few problem that expertise probably solves.
There are often exceptions throughout such laws so it's less simple to say what the law covers than it is to give an example and test if the law covers it.
There is often a lot of seemingly subjective legalese in law that is actually an objective term. Like, "may", "can", "should" that has to be understood.
Then there is language that is actually subjective that laypeople often get wrong because they push those words to extremes to create an absurd example. It's unclear to a lot of people if it's legally okay to do that. Most of the time, that's what a judge is for and that's why different judges give different interpretations. Lay people have a hard time defining the edges off "(practically) all judges would interpret this way" and "(practically) no judges would interpret that way".