I think that this gets a pass because it deals with public safety and the security of his company. I'm sure there is some suspicious behavior/background clause in his airport security informational packet and threatening to blow up the planes he's supposed to be checking certainly goes against that. He shouldn't be censored or arrested for it, but I think it's perfectly understandable the airport wouldn't want to continue employing him. If anything DID go wrong at that airport, they'd be crucified.
It's like if a school teacher performed a song about molesting children, or an office worker about coming into work and shooting people. There's no way you can expect to keep your job after that, you're too much of a liability.
I suppose. But it seems like what he's doing is basically satire (even though I'm not sure he knows the word) and satire isn't the wort of thing that should get you arrested or fired. Satire means you agree with the other wise.
I suppose if he actually ISN'T performing satire and really does like terrorism against the US then that's a different matter. I don't want the guy in charge of airport security siding with muslim extremists for obvious reasons. But if he's just pulling social commentary then it sounds like it was taken way out of context. it's like firing Johnathan Swift at your daycare for a Modest Proposal lased on the fear that he may eat your babies. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened, but I think it would be unnessisary.
I got the impression from the article it was neither, not deliberate satire, not was it actually siding with the terrorists. He sounds like he's just trying to capitalize on the controversy, like a 15 year old that draws an anarchy symbol on everything with a sharpie.
hmm . . . true. Which, i think, is not really a ireable offense, but at the same time it's dumb enough that he should be fired on IQ alone. In which case I'm a happy camper. I like when bad things happen to dumb people.
Ok, this is exactly what's wrong with our government today. The Constitution was specifically set up to protect speech in all its forms, whether written or spoken or performed. All speech. Specifically things that are seditious or les majestie in nature. We are guaranteed the right to speak out against the government in any way that does not cause direct criminal activity. As he admitted this was a marketing scheme, there was no criminal threat, therefore this is a clear case of wrongful dismissal, and a violation of First Amendment rights: the government intentionally and publicly punished an individual citizen for engaging in his Constitutionally protected ability to express his opinion.
He is pretty dumb for doing that tho... and that the TSA was the highest paying job he's ever had simply provides proof as to his level of intelligence.
Except this wasn't the federal governement cracking down on this guy, it was his employer cracking down on him for making public statements about sabotaging his job, and becoming a liability to his employer. You go ahead and post a website about stealing from the company and see how long you stay employed. Pleople keep jumping all over this as a free speech issue, but I see it as a being a dumbass at his job issue. Is it a right to work state? If so, they didn;t even need to give him an excuse.
The TSA is a government agency. Therefore, it IS the government involved. You are protected--by law--from being terminated from employment for bad-mouthing your employer. Simple as that.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have been fired; but he was fired for the wrong (read: illegal) reason. Terminating employment for speech violations, unless a specific ethics contract was signed by the employee, is a violation of the employee's rights. The TSA does not have an ethics clause in its employment contract that covers criticizing the agency or the government. That makes this a clear-cut case of wrongful dismissal. They should have nailed him on some other issue; and given how much of an idiot this guy appears to be, I'm sure there were plenty to choose from.
Furthermore, the SCOTUS long ago declared satire protected speech. Even if the bum didn't intend it that way, it reads and sounds to me like satirical writings. As a famous Justice once said, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."
What I want to know is how moron-boy got hired in the first place. Any background check I run on one of our potential employees would turn up things like this, especially since it was all out in the open.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
roniliquidity) wrote,
July 15 2005, 12:52:31 UTC 6 years ago
I also think it's a trifle unfair that he's been fired, basically, for art. Piss on that. It's sort of shady.
July 15 2005, 13:33:35 UTC 6 years ago
It's like if a school teacher performed a song about molesting children, or an office worker about coming into work and shooting people. There's no way you can expect to keep your job after that, you're too much of a liability.
July 15 2005, 13:53:24 UTC 6 years ago
I suppose if he actually ISN'T performing satire and really does like terrorism against the US then that's a different matter. I don't want the guy in charge of airport security siding with muslim extremists for obvious reasons. But if he's just pulling social commentary then it sounds like it was taken way out of context. it's like firing Johnathan Swift at your daycare for a Modest Proposal lased on the fear that he may eat your babies. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened, but I think it would be unnessisary.
July 15 2005, 14:36:46 UTC 6 years ago
July 15 2005, 15:11:29 UTC 6 years ago
July 15 2005, 15:23:06 UTC 6 years ago
July 15 2005, 16:40:35 UTC 6 years ago
July 16 2005, 05:55:49 UTC 6 years ago
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Ok, this is exactly what's wrong with our government today. The Constitution was specifically set up to protect speech in all its forms, whether written or spoken or performed. All speech. Specifically things that are seditious or les majestie in nature. We are guaranteed the right to speak out against the government in any way that does not cause direct criminal activity. As he admitted this was a marketing scheme, there was no criminal threat, therefore this is a clear case of wrongful dismissal, and a violation of First Amendment rights: the government intentionally and publicly punished an individual citizen for engaging in his Constitutionally protected ability to express his opinion.He is pretty dumb for doing that tho... and that the TSA was the highest paying job he's ever had simply provides proof as to his level of intelligence.
July 16 2005, 12:11:51 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Except this wasn't the federal governement cracking down on this guy, it was his employer cracking down on him for making public statements about sabotaging his job, and becoming a liability to his employer. You go ahead and post a website about stealing from the company and see how long you stay employed. Pleople keep jumping all over this as a free speech issue, but I see it as a being a dumbass at his job issue. Is it a right to work state? If so, they didn;t even need to give him an excuse.July 16 2005, 14:33:24 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
The TSA is a government agency. Therefore, it IS the government involved. You are protected--by law--from being terminated from employment for bad-mouthing your employer. Simple as that.I'm not saying he shouldn't have been fired; but he was fired for the wrong (read: illegal) reason. Terminating employment for speech violations, unless a specific ethics contract was signed by the employee, is a violation of the employee's rights. The TSA does not have an ethics clause in its employment contract that covers criticizing the agency or the government. That makes this a clear-cut case of wrongful dismissal. They should have nailed him on some other issue; and given how much of an idiot this guy appears to be, I'm sure there were plenty to choose from.
Furthermore, the SCOTUS long ago declared satire protected speech. Even if the bum didn't intend it that way, it reads and sounds to me like satirical writings. As a famous Justice once said, "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."
What I want to know is how moron-boy got hired in the first place. Any background check I run on one of our potential employees would turn up things like this, especially since it was all out in the open.