Undoubtedly "9/11/05 BE READY TO DIE" is merely a new way of expressing "69". :D

Not really, or at least, it shouldn't be. Creating a novel is a protected fprm of expression, and most people are able to understand that it's fiction. Now, if that same teacher was simply writing fantasies about child sex, with no intent for commercial publication, you might be able to cross from one shade of grey to another and raise some issues.

Stephen King was a high school teacher when he wrote Carrie, and a number of other works (once Carrie went to paperback, he was able to "quit his day job," but not before) These stories featured high schoolers in violent, twisted, and at times rather sick situations ... but I don't think people screamed for him to lose his job as a teacher.

Advocating the overthrow of the United States government is subject to interpretation.

"I think we ought to get rid of [insert name of any president] and his cronies"

"I think we ought to re-write the Constitution of the United States and start all over with a new government"

"I think we ought to line up all the Republican/Democrat congressional persons and shoot them down like dogs"

Add expletives to color these statements, go as far as substituting the word "kill" for "get rid of" and there still is no violation of the law. These are mere expressions of an opinion. As long as the person expressing these views doesn't actually follow through to carry these out in a manner that violates the law, then there is no crime. Getting rid of [insert name] and his cronies can be done by electorial recall, impeachment or election of a different candidate as well as through violent means. The difference is that one is legal and the other illegal. However, even if advocating a violent overthrow, the line that has to be crossed is an overt act towards the commission of a crime.

If I say that I wish a certain person was dead, while offensive, I really haven't committed a crime. If I buy a gun, I may not necessarily committed a crime because it's legal to buy a firearm. However, if I buy a gun and begin my own private surveillance of the person I said I wished was dead, then I am getting closer towards the commission of a crime and that may be enough to meet the threshold for criminal intent.

I don't find any entertainment value in making light of or singing about terrorism or killing innocent people. However, as disgusting and offensive as it is to me, there is no violation of law here.

Are Khalaf's activities incompatible with the goals of TSA and its image? Certainly. However, all of this was off the TSA clock and none of it was done in the name of TSA. He did not represent himself as a TSA employee, and he kept the specifics of his songs out of the TSA workplace. Instead, TSA sought him out with its "eyes and ears in the workplace." This, to me, is the greater issue.

I'm surprised how many of the personalities in here so quick to jump on routine screening matters as violations of constitutional principles and basic rights are ignoring the greater issue here. No, I wouldn't want to work next to this guy knowing what his views are; however, there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. TSA chose the wrong way.

There is a policy memo published by TSA threatening termination of TSA employees who publish statements contrary to the TSA public image. It's a very loosely worded document with vague references to internet websites. Most likely, it was specifically directed against screeners who post inflammatory and offensive comments against coworkers on a screener-related website at tsascreener.com. It has all the sophisticated debate of graffitti written on a truck stop bathroom stall. IMO, it was written as a scare tactic to stop screeners from posting on that website. (It didn't.) I'm curious if the basis for Khalaf's termination comes from the same policy memo.

To take it a step further, I wonder if the comments I've posted in this website and other websites where I criticize some of TSA's policies could ever be used against me. I'm not scared of TSA or anything like that and welcome the fight should it ever come to me. The point is that the action against Khalaf opens the door for TSA to take bolder steps against employees it deems as undesirable or whose views are inconsistent with those of TSA. And that is the danger to the basic rights of people to express themselves or share their views on topics of common interest.

Again, I'm surprised that many in here don't see it.

I think one of the earlier posts may have touched on the issue of security clearances and background checks.

The TSA folks on here can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that even the screeners hold some level of government security clearance.

The individual can do or say what he wants (within the law), but his employment requires a certain security clearance. His activities and expressions can be used to determine his eligibility for his clearance.

His expressions and beliefs could be construed from his lyrics. Do you take him at his word its "just entertainment"? Evidently the TSA decided no. If he cant maintain a security clearance, he cant maintain his job. Security Clearances are not a right, so they got rid of him.

"'Tis easier to seek forgiveness than to obtain permission."

I guess this was TSA management's operating principle in this case. ;)

Doesn't work that way, or at least not in my experiences with how government security clearances work. Usually, there's a process for bringing forward derogatory information that may impact on an individual's trustworthiness to hold a security clearance. While that person's background is in question, the individual is usually suspended from any duties that require access to sensitive information until the matter is resolved. The person in question is usually given an opportunity to explain, refute or mitigate the derogatory information before the clearance authority makes a final determination of that person's continued eligibility to maintain that clearance.

Instead, TSA summarily fired this person without any due process. Again, no one is questioning how TSA obtained the information it based its decision on.

I've conducted every sort of security-related investigation ranging from simple background security checks to real-world, no-sh*t espionage cases against individuals who had extremely sensitive security clearance and acccess. In each case, there was a due process of sorts that protected the individual while evidence/information was collected. This didn't happen in Khalaf's case, now did it.

Okay, now I think I understand. If this former TSA employee had just been singing these songs about crashing airplanes (or phalluses) to himself, with no intent for commercial publication, it would be fair to nail him? :)

Well... yes. If I overheard a TSA employee rapping to himself about crashing planes, it would be a serious sign of worry for me ... but when producing same songs in a recording studio (or even practicing in a jam session in his garage with his band, etc.), it's clear that it is a creative work and not the mumblings of a disturbed individual. Maybe he could argue he was "formulating" the rap by singing it to himself, and that would be a legit excuse, but it would certainly lead me to investigate his background a bit more closely.

It's a shade of grey thing, but most on this particular forum have real problems with those. ;)

As a music major, I couldn't confirm that creative works even by certain classical composers weren't the "mumblings of a disturbed individual" who shouldn't be working for the TSA. :D

As to "due process," that's a separate issue for sure, as raised by you and Bart. Everybody deserves it, unless they've specifically waived it - no argument from me on that.

As to "shades of grey," that's what the real world is often all about, isn't it? :)

If that is the case (and I dont know enough about this individuals case to know if he was interviewed or asked to respond, or just told "get out")
then some lawyer will be on the case no doubt. TSA's stupidity if they did not cross the T's and dot the I's.

I was just making the point that his activities could have impacted his security clearance.

No doubt that they do put his suitability into question. However, there's still due process. The irony here is that many people who post in this forum believe that their due process is denied to them as passengers by TSA. That's not the case; only against its own employees.

.....

The question is: where do you draw the line between creativity and intent to commit a criminal act? I don't see it as a separate issue; I see it as part of the same issue.

Some people think that movies that feature nudity or simulated sex scenes are pornographic even though the Supreme Court has ruled that they are not. We have movies out today that feature some pretty gruesome and violent action, yet no one regards the actors as really violent or sadistic or that the actors particularly enjoy the violence they portray on the screen. People generally accept the fact that actors pretend to be something they are not. While Alec Baldwin has certainly made his political views known, he's still portrayed characters contrary to those political views. Likewise, Madonna has certainly stirred up the pot of controversy with her songs, publicity stunts and certain controversial publication that features her in various states of nude poses. But she doesn't go around during her private life parading around in the nude or having sex with strangers at random. I'm sure there are better examples of what I'm trying to say, but my point is that if music is creative expression, then where is the line drawn that defines when that expression becomes a true reflection of intent to commit a crime? Or should there be such a line drawn?

Weak but useful analogy for trying to illicit a visceral reaction of rightful repulsion. If a teacher-historian was writing a book about a Roman emperor's childhood and that included mentions of child sex would you suggest that said author be tossed out of school if it was not an advocacy of such repulsive acts?

collapse from orgasm?