[timwiseman]

As always you bring great insight into this, but what your reply does not mention is that the average laymen knows none of this.

Having such a law on the books means that a boss, computer service provider, etc. could show a laymen this law, even let them look up the law themselves and then threaten to have someone prosecuted for things which may be proper (or at least not illegal). The person being threatened would be able to verify that the law was real and without having a lawyer to explain the full situation may feel they are in a very bad bargaining position for whatever demands the other side makes.

As the court said, "We shouldn't have to live at the mercy of the local prosecutor" but neither should people without lawyers have to live at the mercy of those who could use such a law to threaten prosecution for negotiating purposes.

[tptacek]

If the problem is that employers can misrepresent the law to laypeople with no legal expertise, how does changing the law fix that?

[timwiseman]

Entirely fix it? It can't. Limit it? Certainly.

When they have a law that seems on first reading to say what the employer says it does, then the employer can show it to the employee to gain credence and the law itself will confuse any employee who does a little research without going further.

More than that, the employer may not realize they are misrepresenting it when the law seems to say something. They may be misusing the law in good faith. Something that will happen less often with clearly written laws that are not heavily interpreted in the common law.