How People Voted
 |
 |
11% For, 89% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 735, The Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
No revisions found.
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Wil Melendez
May 6, 2007, 2:42pm (report abuse)The legal definition of a 'hoax' should be revised in order for this bill to be accepted by the public. When we think of a hoax--we think of a bad joke. What about persons who are incorrectly suspected of being affiliated with terrorism? They are abjectly subject to this law without any kind of immunity. What a clever bill... a bill justifying the act of hoaxing a hoax.
Mr Bill
May 7, 2007, 2:16pm (report abuse)Just because Boston has incompetent responders whom are incapable of telling a neon or led sign apart from a bomb. Does not mean we need to make an advertiser a criminal.
How about training the responders to look at the object and see what it is. Leave the dogs and military stuff behind, get out and observe, ask the kids in the neighborhood, they are likely more knowledgeable anyway.
Reason
May 8, 2007, 11:59am (report abuse)Boston police apparently also thought that a traffic monitoring device was a bomb. Does this bill count that as a Terrorist Hoax?
http://wbztv.com/local/local_story_059122735.html
Tim
May 9, 2007, 11:51am (report abuse)The bill is a bit silly, but it could open up discussion to a more progressive bill that could give a bit more power to prosecutors for genuine hoaxes. At the same time though, the same bill should at least have a provision to allow the government to be held responsible when it irresponsibly jumps to conclusions like Boston did.
Shiloh
May 9, 2007, 12:55pm (report abuse)This is another example of legislation that does nothing to clarify anything. The elected reprehensibles can wave the bill around saying how they have stepped forward to protect the community.
ClueBy4
May 11, 2007, 8:01pm (report abuse)So, Is the president and his administration going to charged with this law if it does come into affect?
Since they didn't hoax the congress into the Iraq war.