#1
Trollkiller , Jun 27, 2009 7:42 pm
Comics artist Mark Sable detained for Unthinkable acts
Quote:
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.
LinkageBoom! 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.
#2
whirledtraveler , Jun 27, 2009 7:49 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
It doesn't say he was detained for any length of time. It must be because screeners read a lot of comics.
#3
Trollkiller , Jun 27, 2009 8:52 pm
Quote:
It must be a good comic, the screener had to sit down to read it.Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
It doesn't say he was detained for any length of time. It must be because screeners read a lot of comics.
#4
Quote:
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.Originally Posted by Trollkiller
It must be a good comic, the screener had to sit down to read it.
#5
AngryMiller , Jun 28, 2009 6:35 am
Quote:
Linkage
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.Originally Posted by Trollkiller
Comics artist Mark Sable detained for Unthinkable actsLinkage
#6
whirledtraveler , Jun 28, 2009 6:38 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
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.
#7
Jaimito Cartero , Jun 28, 2009 6:39 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
'Dem TSA folk luv da comic type bookies. As long as there ain't no biggie wurds!
#8
Quote:
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.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.
#9
Quote:
It must be a struggle to find something interesting in an otherwise boring, thankless, low morale job...Originally Posted by exerda
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.
#10
Quote:
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?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.
#11
AngryMiller , Jun 28, 2009 8:25 am
Quote:
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.Originally Posted by txrus
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?
#12
Quote:
This guy should contact the ACLU. Perfect ammunition for their ongoing case.Originally Posted by AngryMiller
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.
#13
Quote:
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.Originally Posted by txrus
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?
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.
#14
Global_Hi_Flyer , Jun 28, 2009 10:21 am
Quote:
Wrong.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.
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.
#15
Quote:
Agree.Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer
The minute they started reading the document was the moment they stepped over the line. A document cannot be travel-related contraband.
Quote:
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. 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.
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.