Boom! Studios sends word that comics writer Mark Sable was detained by TSA security guards at Los Angeles International Airport this past weekend (May) because he was carrying a script for a new issue of his comic miniseries Unthinkable. ...
..."The minute I saw the faces of the agents, I knew I was in trouble. The first page of the Unthinkable script mentioned 9/11, terror plots, and the fact that the (fictional) world had become a police state. The TSA agents then proceeded to interrogate me, having a hard time understanding that a comic book could be about anything other than superheroes, let alone that anyone actually wrote scripts for comics.
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.
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.
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.
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...
__________________
"Keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken
Programs: AA Ex Platinum, Marriott Gold, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryMiller
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Programs: DL 2+ million/PM, YX, Marriott Plt, *wood gold, HHonors, CO Plt, UA, AA EXP, WN, AGR
Posts: 9,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
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.
The minute they started reading the document was the moment they stepped over the line. A document cannot be travel-related contraband.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
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.
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.
