Man detained for his writings.
 

Comics artist Mark Sable detained for Unthinkable acts

Linkage

It doesn't say he was detained for any length of time. It must be because screeners read a lot of comics.

It must be a good comic, the screener had to sit down to read it.

Yeah, he can do that. He will readability the comic book all of the time. He will try to speak with very good English skills.

Chilling when they go through a guy's papers. How did this guy's papers pose any threat to airline security? Guess that the adage the pen is mightier than the sword came into play on this.

Looks like he has grounds for a lawsuit. The TSA should not be reading through his papers. Words are not a credible weapon on an airplane.

'Dem TSA folk luv da comic type bookies. As long as there ain't no biggie wurds! ;)

I've had them on very rare occasions flip through books and a CD wallet. I asked a screener if it was really necessary to look over my individual CDs, and she just put them back in my bag and didn't say anything else. Another gent commented that he liked the author I was reading, etc. Way too nosy for the scope of their jobs, IMHO.

It must be a struggle to find something interesting in an otherwise boring, thankless, low morale job...;)

Maybe I'm missing something (I'm not a lawyer), but wasn't that the essence of the Fofana case-once the screener determined the papers/whatever bore no threat to aviation security, i.e., weapons or explosives, there is no grounds to search further?

Yes, my take on it as well. Papers x-rayed and passed then no reason to give them as much as a second glance. This, IMHO, is way out of bounds by the TSOs and should result in some retraining for their primary mission of WEI.

This guy should contact the ACLU. Perfect ammunition for their ongoing case.

I would not want to take this one on since the cartoons were terror-related. Since airport security in a "post-9/11 world" is a touchy topic, I'd want a case that was non-terror-related protected speech. Something like that could tip a judge on the side of 09/11/2001 instead of the side of 12/15/1791. The better case would have been the KHIAI bag.

As far a Fofana is concerned, the TSO admitted that going through the envelopes was a pure fishing expidition for non-travel-related contraband and that the bag had been cleared before s/he continued to snoop.

In this case, the TSO's were not on a fishing expedition for non-travel-related contraband, but they were doing an "investigation" into something that could, possibly implicate airport security. I'm not saying that I agree that going through papers one considers "suspicious" is part of a proper WEI search, but a good test case, this is not.

Wrong.

The minute they started reading the document was the moment they stepped over the line. A document cannot be travel-related contraband.

I would submit that this is a perfect test cast as the victim of the intrusive TSA search is a writer with an unpublished manuscript. It's really no different than the TSA reading written materials that I might have that are considered company confidential.

Agree.

A perfect test case is one that doesn't conjure up 9/11 emotions-- judges are people too, even though they are supposed to look only at the law.

As I said, "I would not want to take this one on since the cartoons were terror-related. Since airport security in a "post-9/11 world" is a touchy topic, I'd want a case that was non-terror-related protected speech. Something like that could tip a judge on the side of 09/11/2001 instead of the side of 12/15/1791. The better case would have been the KHIAI bag."

I agree with your analysis of the facts and the law, but I wouldn't want to give the court any emotional fodder on a test case. I am a realist in addition to an idealist. If the detention had been significant and well-documented, then it would make for a much stronger case, IMO.

I think the ACLU should know about this regardless-- I will stand behind anyone who wants to take up this cause, but that person isn't me.