Well, that one word "reasonably" covers it all. You paint a fairy-tale picture, and all reasonableness is right out the window.

Oh! Oh! You deliberately left out (those …'s) the part about it being information about a crime! What a troll that was.

For reference,

... may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute a violation of chapter 2 [aircraft & motor vehicles], 10 [biological weapons], 11B [chemical weapons], 39 [explosives & other dangerous articles], 40 [importation, manufacture, distribution & storage of explosive materials], 44 [firearms], 111 [shipping], or 113B [terrorism] of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284) [sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel], or section 46502, the second sentence of section 46504, section 46505(b)(3) or (c), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved, or section 60123(b) of title 49, shall...

IANAL, but these don't seem to be the "lying about treasure" types of statutes. Unless your treasure is plutonium.

Ha! There's something particularly ironic in gp eliding material facts from a post about 'false information and hoaxes!'

Sorry. I could have been nicer. But it seemed to me, to be a deliberate misrepresentation and I called it out.

Perhaps it was deliberate misrepresentation, that isn't the point. The point is that calling people out for deliberate misrepresentation tends to lead discussions away from the constructive, informative and civil ideal that HN aspires to.