Slashdot Mirror
Webcomic Author Deemed a Terrorist Threat
CaptainCarrot writes "Writer/IT contractor Matt Boyd, formerly the man who made up the words for webcomic Mac Hall and who now does the same for his and Ian McConville's new comic Three Panel Soul, was recently fired from his government job. His conversation with a co-worker about a gun he intended to buy for target shooting was overheard by someone in a nearby cubicle. As it was unfortunately the day of the Virginia Tech shootings, the eavesdropper panicked and reported him to management. That was bad enough. But when he used the comic to document the meeting where the reason for his firing was explained, he was visited by representatives of local law enforcement investigating him on suspicion of making a "terroristic threat" using the Internet. No charges have been filed. Yet. FLEEN interviewed Matt about the incident."
The term "terroristic threat" has been around a long time, and has nothing to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat", as it is used in the vernacular.
The term and legal notion of "terroristic threat" has been around for a long time, and has nothing to do with the "war on terror", 9/11, the Bush administration, or censorship.
Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.
Even Boyd himself in his interview correctly notes that "a terroristic threat is an old legal concept".
He is also not charged with any crime (though technically he could be), but that's always true. He says the "detectives at least seem satisfied" that he was "harmless", and showed samples of his work to one of the detectives.
It would be better to read his interview, instead of believing someone thinks this has anything to do with "terrorism" or a "terrorist threat" (no one does; remember, "terroristic threat is a legal concept that has been around a long time).
Actually, I take that back. There are people painting this as allegedly being thought of as "terrorism". It's people who want to get all indignant about it.
By the way: anyone who thinks Virginia Tech could have "prevented" this shooting somehow, this is exactly what you get.
Matt doesn't draw them, Ian Mconville draws them. www.machall.com
Also, he is a contract employee who can be released at any time for any reason, even moreso than a normal at-will employee who also can be released at any time for any reason.
Only within the terms of his contract. Sorry, just couldn't resist after you made "contract" italics and got all righteous. "Contract employee" does not mean "company's little bitch", and in fact, a contract worker can have more protection from sudden termination. Most of us are "at will" employees, and simply having something in your contract that prohibits your employer from firing you for no reason, gives you more rights. If worded reasonably (ie not "I AM UNFIREABLE FOR A YEAR!"), you MAY get that concession.
If you don't like being an at-will employee: get fired for no reason, sue, and get it far up enough to MAYBE be heard by the supreme court, because they're the ones who set the horrendous precedent in the first place. You don't have a prayer of getting legislation even presented, much less making it past committee, because of all the lobbying.
Please help metamoderate.
Where is all this because he's a contract employee he can be fired for _any reason_ crap come in?
He must not have a very good contract. I'm a contract employee, and you'd better believe my contracts certainly don't allow me to fired for any reason. Actually, it would be pretty difficult for one of my employers to fire me for any reason other than not completing the job I was contracted to do. If was fired for "no reason", it would usually mean them paying me to not show up.
One facet to that... If you're in an "at will" state and they actually give you a reason (they don't have to), it has to actually be a legitimate reason.
They can't lie.
They can't make something up.
They can't be noticably discriminatory.
But all they do have to say is "you are fired", and if that's all they say, then there isn't much that can be done.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
"I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this."
Unfortunately the NRA has been MIA on a lot of this type of stuff. It used to be that a member could ask them for help, and if you were in the right, they would give you a hand.
These days The NRA is more interested in what your political and marketing value it to them. For example, they've been actively opposing the case that recently led to an appeals court ruling in the DC Circuit that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right and struck down part of the DC gun ban. The NRA's fear was the the case would make its way to The SCOTUS and be lost, thereby creating a bad precedent like US vs. Miller.
Grass roots organizations like GOA or, here in Virginia VCDL, are much more likely to help you, but they lack the deep pockets and legal muscle of The NRA. It seems that The NRA, or at least the NRA-ILA, has fallen victim to the same self-importance as the politicians they lobby. The sad thing is that the true mission of The NRA, and what they excel at, firearms education, is more important than ever, but no longer seems to be their focus.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
His interview with police will not show up on any background check, of any kind, anywhere, ever.
He will not be on any TSA, or any other, watch lists (and wouldn't be even if he was convicted of a crime - WTF? Oh, you're one of those people who think "terroristic threat" somehow is equated with "terrorism", even though they're utterly and completely different concepts, and unrelated).
He will not be "punished", for anything, and the only way anyone will know about this is because of the life it will have on blogs, and no one in any official capacity, save for possibly the individual detectives who talked to him about it remembering with their own minds, will have any knowledge of it.
I can't believe how wrong your entire post was, and that it got modded up to boot.
Fascism is an authoritarian form of government, where amoung other things the culture and economy is centrally planned by the state.
An small employer being able to fire their employees for any reason they want is not fascist. You might argue that it is "anarchist" or something... you can argue that it is morally wrong. But it is a case of the government forgoing centralized authority, it is an example of a regression of the police state, so it is not fascist in any way, shape, or form.
Giving power to hire and fire to individuals and small companies is inherently anti-fascist. Power is being redirected from the vast state/police/corporate machinery into small, widely distributed organizations. It is about as anti-fascist as you can possibly get.