Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Legislation Is Mooninite Fallout
theantipop writes "Ars Technica has a story about the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act, a bill introduced recently by the Senate. The bill aims to 'amend the federal criminal code to include a number of new clauses meant to up the ante on wasting government resources. The amendments include extensions to the prohibitions on the spread of false information and mailing threats, increases to maximum prison terms, and allowances for civil suits so that local and federal governments can attempt to recoup expenses related to an incident.' This is undoubtedly a reaction to the Great Mooninite Scare of 2007."
Great, now take the finger, a few others to a pen, and press it to a piece of paper.
Now write a damn letter to you representitives and tell them how you feel.
Nicely.
Or an email, whatever.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The government has always been able to enter civil suits.
Yes, they are outside of the criminal justice system. That means, for one thing, no one is going to be sent to jail, executed, etc.
Government engages in civil lawsuits all the time.
Government has been able to take civil action forever. So there is no real precedent in it being able to do so now.
Not only can they, but they have been for quite some time.
"And all of the actors form War of the Worlds would be locked up.."
RTFA for crying out loud!
According to the article, you can only be held liable if 1) they (the government) react as if it were a real emergency, 2) you are aware of their overreaction, and 3) you fail to tell them that it is not a real emergency.
The War of the Worlds broadcast was broadcast with disclaimers. And I'm not aware of any government emergency response triggered by the broadcast. This law doesn't cover activities wasting private citizens' resources, only government resources. And CBS certainly would have informed the goverment of the nature of the program had they been aware of any official emergency response.
And the radio broadcast was ORSON Welles, not H.G. Welles.
According to dictionary.com, the Random House Unabridged Dictionary definition of "hoax" is "something intended to deceive or defraud". I don't see how, at all, the mooninite publicity stunt would be a "hoax" under the proper definition.
Sure, if they had intended to scare the public into thinking that terrorists were attacking America in order to drive them into their homes (where they would no doubt cower in fear watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force), then yes, I would agree that it was a hoax and that they would need to be properly penalized.
It doesn't seem like that was the case at all. I wish people would stop using words however they want, especially in political arenas, where rhetoric is one of the most powerful tools available. ("You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.")
I agree with the bill in letter, but I doubt the government's ability to follow it in spirit. Anything they don't like and construe as a terrorist treat can be a "hoax". That guy in a black spider-man costume? Well, we need some money... he must be a possible terrorist.
http://www.tenjou.net/
You just misinterpreted that comment as much as you possibly could have.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The meat of it:
Discuss.This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
It would seem that since Senator Kennedy of Massachussettes is the sponsor of the bill this has something to do with the Mooninite fallout. IANAL but I still didn't read anything much that would put the guerilla marketing company in too much extra trouble. The thing that stands out to me is that the amended version still says
The key I think is in the first part of the sentence that says "...with intent to convey false or misleading information...". I guess a case could be made that their intent was to convey false or misleading information by not providing any information but it seems like that is stretching it.
For the links I used:
the proposed amendment and its full text
Unamended Section 1038 of Title 18 of the US Code
section 2332b since the amendment adds a reference to section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of this title ( Title 18 )
Homer said that on the Prohibition episode of The Simpsons. Rex Banner will have strong words for you!
The conditions on Saddam's "probation" from 1991 were for him to provide proof, let inspectors do their inspecting, of dismantling the weapons he did have at the time of the agreement. He didn't do any of that, so it became time for the probation officers to kick down his door and settle things for his original crimes.
for him to provide proof,
On December 7, 2002, Iraq submitted a 12,000 page document outlining what it claimed was evidence of its weapons of mass destruction capabilities. Much of the report was recycled from previous declarations (after all, if you've said you destroyed something you can't very well provide any new information) though some clarifications of previous declarations was also provided. The UN used this declaration to assist the inspectors which were in the country (see below) to verify Iraq's claims.
Further, as soon as the report came out, and before anyone had even looked at it, Donald Rumsfeld was saying the entire report was a bunch of lies.
Hey, here's an idea. Instead of shooting your mouth off and saying someone is lying, how about at least putting on a show of opening the documents and then lie about someone else lying.
let inspectors do their inspecting,
Straight from Hans Blix's report from February 14, 2003:
Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidencethat the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.
A bit further down the page we find:
More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been collected at different sites. Three-quarters of these have been screened using our own laboratory analytical capabilities at the Baghdad Centre (BOMVIC). The results to date have been consistent with Iraq's declarations.
The only thing Hans' report does say is that not all of the destroyed material that Iraq claimed it had destroyed twelve years prior could be verified to have been destroyed. However, the inspectors continuing to work with the Iraqi officials to verify this claim.
And this is what Blix himself had to say in 2003 about Saddam's declarations:
"With this long period, I'm inclined to think that the Iraqi statement that they destroyed all the biological and chemical weapons, which they had in the summer of 1991 may well be the truth," Blix told CNN television.
Common Dreams link
Further, it was the U.S. who didn't want the inspectors to continue their inspections because they weren't finding anything, even after the U.S. gave them specific locations to look at, and so were afraid that the longer the inspections went on without finding anything, the more public opinion would turn against their already conceived plans to invade and occupy Iraq.
of dismantling the weapons he did have at the time of the agreement.
He did not have any of the weapons despite Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld repeatedly stating, "We know he has them and we know where they are." If we knew where those weapons were, why didn't we provide that information to the UN inspectors who were on the ground looking for those weapons? Iraq's declaration showed that they had destroyed their wmd stockpiles and construction capabilities as directed to by previous UN resolutions and in those few cases where there were discrepancies, was working with the UN inspectors to clarify the questions. Continuing to state a lie enough times does not make it a fact.
Are we done now with the propaganda? It's not like poll after poll hasn't shown that people who watch Fox Noise are the most ill-informed people in the nation. You didn't need to offer proof of the validity of those polls.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower