It is probably the satirical nature of a hoax, but it seems that governments, particularly that of Boston, do not like hoaxes. A hoax, according to Wikipedia, is an attempt to trick people into believing that something false is real. Remember the Aqua Teen Hunger Force fiasco that took place earlier this year? The ad men associated with it were arrested on hoax-related charges. Last week, a woman was arrested at Logan Airport for “possession of a hoax device” that turned out to be a breadboard with some LEDS, resistors and a 9-volt battery dangling in sight. Hoax-related charges are pretty serious involving, at least in the latter example, up to five years in prison. This seems like a bit of overkill for something that isn’t even the perpetrator’s fault.

Possession of a hoax device would require an intention to commit a hoax, just as possession of a murder weapon would require an intention to murder. It is the usage, or intended usage, that defines these items. Without the intent, all that anyone can possess is an item: a something. Because the guys who placed the Aqua Teen Hunger Force signs stated they had no intention of making people think that their signs were anything other than what they were, it is clear that there was no intended hoaxing. The same goes for the woman at the airport. On both counts, the charges should then be changed to “possession of something.” Possessing something is sort of an inherent right, guaranteed by the fact our forefathers passed on opposable thumbs to their children.

The people who call in the complaints are the ones who should be arrested. They are the ones who determine the items’ usage. They are the ones who begin a panic that spreads much further than anyone so poorly informed should be able to spread influence. In the absence of any other information, they pick something from their memories that they think the item might be, and then act on it. The “hoax,” in the beginning, is entirely self-contained; it is self-generated, and then self-directed. Yet somehow, the effects can come back to hurt innocent people.

Really, though, they shouldn’t be held accountable. After all, ascribing remembered functions to newly perceived objects is what we all do every minute that we’re awake. Otherwise, you would never know what anything is. Also, I like the idea that there is someone looking out for strange activity. It almost helps me feel as safe as the government tapping everyone’s phone. You can’t arrest someone for keeping me safe, can you?

The people who get excited over somebody else’s possession are to blame for starting panics, but if their behavior isn’t reprehensible, then who should the blame fall on? And here is where I will unveil a novel idea. I had to import it from overseas because this concept has a hard time flourishing in the United States, but here it is: How about we don’t blame anyone?

Maybe we should just learn to chuckle a little bit more and say, “Whew, I thought that … Oh, heck, let’s go have a beer!” more often. People will still be allowed to be vigilant of suspicious behavior without worrying about consequences, and people will still be able to possess stuff without going to jail if someone doesn’t know what it is. Heck, it’s even possible that people will start to respect police and the legal system.

There are a lot of people in America, and some of them do not like to learn new things. Computers are difficult for some people, but pop culture is even harder for others. Still, cultural Luddites should not be excluded from the Homeland Security Neighborhood Watch. I think it is great that commuters in Boston took the time to call the police when they saw something suspicious, but when it turned out just to be a Mooninite giving Boston the finger, the police should not have arrested anybody. They should have laughed, or, if they didn’t get it, spend more time watching the Cartoon Network, as the advertisers were trying to suggest.