Originally Posted by
Bart
I don't have a problem with this. There are passengers who resort to physical violence or destruction. While not necessary to be put on a no-fly list, I think TSA should maintain a database for these types of passengers.
As for TSOs who exhibit such behavior, they should be terminated.
I agree with you regarding passengers who resort to physical violence or destruction
directed at a screener (or other TSA employee). However, this from the article:
"Incidents in the database include threats, bullying or verbal abuse, remarks about death or violence, brandishing a real or fake weapon, intentionally scaring workers or excessive displays of anger such as punching a wall or kicking equipment, the report says."
Threats? Perhaps.
Bullying? What, exactly, is "bullying" in this context? Is it bullying when I call a screener's bluff and say, "Let's summon a LEO." How about when I ask for a supervisor? How about when I believe, in good faith, that a screener is wrong? Or rude? This TSA "rule" chills First Amendment speech and is presumptively unconstitutional.
Verbal abuse? 'Fraid not. I have a constitutional right to call a TSO stupid (and irrespective of whether he is stupid or not). "Verbal abuse" is constitutionally-protected speech.
Remarks about death or violence?Depends. If they're perceived as threats, possibly.
Brandishing a real or fake weapon? Absolutely -- no argument there. Note, though, that "brandishing" has a legal definition. A child with a water pistol is not "brandishing."
Intentionally scaring workers? It depends. Putting someone in apprehension of an immediate, unpermitted contact is the legal definition of assault. Obviously, assault on TSA personnel should be (and is) illegal. Is it "scaring" a worker if I say, "I'm writing a letter of complaint!"? How about, "Please call your supervisor, the FSD, GSC and a LEO right now!"?
Excessive displays of anger such as punching a wall or kicking equipment? I'll accept the two examples given as appropriate. I find "excessive displays of anger," too broad and constitutionally vague. I have a constitutional right to be angry at a screener. I have a constitutional right to communicate that anger to the screener.
This appears to be yet another instance in which the TSA has decided to exercise discretion to sanction a broad range of constitutionally-protected activities.
Oh, and as a reminder to everyone, you are under no legal obligation whatsoever to provide any information to TSA for their "incident reports" that, as we all suspected, appear to be used, in violation of law, to provide data for this recently revealed list.