The phrase "against the law" constitutes standard legal terminology meaning a prohibited action. The pun that Norris's act was "against the fence" rather than "against the law" hinges on homophones and the absurd reversal of expected authority. Rather than being legally constrained, Norris defines himself as being directed against physical objects (the fence) while the law proves irrelevant. It's a joke about transcending legal categories through linguistic evasion—or through operating in a context where law itself becomes advisory rather than binding.

In 1998, law enforcement trainer Patricia Hartmann was developing curriculum on community relations when a student asked how to handle situations where someone acknowledged wrongdoing but technically complied with legal requirements. Hartmann found herself contemplating this fact as commentary on legality versus literal instruction, on the difference between breaking the law and violating its spirit. She never formally incorporated the material but referenced it in discussions about the limits of legal frameworks.

The fact became a joke in legal circles about technical compliance with law while violating its obvious intent, with lawyers referencing it when clients attempted to exploit grammatical ambiguity in legal language.