Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship United States Your Rights Online

Webcomic Author Deemed a Terrorist Threat 486

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Webcomic Author Deemed a Terrorist Threat

Comments Filter:
  • chilling effects? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scrain ( 43626 ) * on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:02PM (#19005123)
    Regardless, the comic was at worst a vague veiled show of frustration against the establishment, not a threat to man or corporation.

    As someone who is part of the organization of another major webcomic, things like this are frightening. I like to keep my jobs, personally.
  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:26PM (#19005381)

    ...fired from his government job [CC]. His conversation with a co-worker about a gun he intended to buy for target shooting was overheard by someone in a nearby cubicle.

    I'd be interested to hear the NRA's response to this.
  • by basic0 ( 182925 ) <mmccollow@@@yahoo...ca> on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:34PM (#19005467)
    Why should people think anyone that talks about guns is going to go on a killing rampage. If they were going to go kill people, the probably wouldn't be talking openly about guns!!

    Good point. You ever notice that the real nutjobs out there that walk into some public area and spray bullets all over the place are always described as "quiet" and "shy" and "oh my, he never talked about guns" and "gee, it's so surprising because he was a really nice boy" etc etc..

    I can't remember one time when they talked to people who knew one of these mass murderers after the fact and they've said anything remotely like "well, he did talk about guns a lot" and "he went to the shooting range every week".

    I mean seriously, if you were planning to commit such a terrible crime, or any crime for that matter, would you let any details out before you did it? Why would you risk getting busted before the fact? Don't they teach "think like a criminal" to law enforcement anymore?

    Actually, I don't suppose they could...then they'd have to march every new graduate right off the dais and into a paddywagon for "criminal thoughts".

  • after columbine (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sentientbrendan ( 316150 ) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:53PM (#19005657)
    immediately after columbine, back when I was in middle school (I guess that was quite a while ago) I remember a lot of kids getting expelled because for no particular reason other than that they were problem kids, had ADD, were loners, acted out a little, etc. If they made the administration nervous, they'd chuck them out the door. School and government bureaucrats tend to fear people who stick out more than anyone else.

    In context it's kind of hilarious because our school had a problem with gang violence (it was the suburbs and middle school, so this wasn't exactly the stuff you see in the movies, but it was pretty bad), that the administration more or less ignored.
  • by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @06:59PM (#19005737) Journal
    Like many other crimes these days, it is the implication that you might do the crime that is becoming illegal, or in this case punishable. Like the virtual rape in second life http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/04/15 25222 [slashdot.org]. Or things like prosecuting someone who thinks they are flirting with a minor. Sure things like murder, pedophilia and terroism aren't going to have any vocal champions, but it grows into things like outlawing marijuana flavored candy.

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/119442.html [reason.com] "Several jurisdictions, including Chicago, already have banned cannabis-flavored candy; Georgia is on the verge of prohibiting sales to minors; and legislators in other states have proposed their own restrictions or bans. Before the whole country is overwhelmed by the urge to prohibit anything that tastes like pot, let's pause to consider the aim of such legislation. Ban proponents do not claim the candy itself is dangerous. Rather, they object to the ideas it represents."

    Let's face it, ideas and presumed intentions are becoming criminal. George Orwell called it.
  • Re:Also (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dredd13 ( 14750 ) <dredd@megacity.org> on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:01PM (#19005759) Homepage
    This depends a great deal on where you live. In a lot of at-will states, it is sufficient to simply say "you are fired." You don't need a reason of any kind. It can be "because you wore a purple shirt today," and unless "purple shirt wearing" is a protected class against discrimination (hint - it isn't), it sticks. Every jurisdiction is different, but this is the way it actually works in a lot of locations. I know I've heard human resources attorneys in my state (NY) tell me this on multiple occasions.
  • I guess (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lars T. ( 470328 ) <Lars.Traeger@goo ... .com minus berry> on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:04PM (#19005775) Journal
    he [threepanelsoul.com] had [threepanelsoul.com] it [threepanelsoul.com] coming.
  • Re:So...? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:24PM (#19005953)
    Sounds like you need some sort of timeout on how long this sort of stuff hangs around. In the UK convictions (except in certain situations) expire after a while. And he wasn't even arrested. How would that end up being noticeable when he's flying? And when he's renting etc - do members of the public have access to police records so that every chat is noted? Can I just phone the police in the States and pretend to be a landlord/prospective employer etc and find out every time you've been pulled over for having a faulty brake light?

    > Given the odds that some child conceived, somewhere, will have a genetic defect (not to mention prenatal difficulties, post-natal
    > trauma, disease, ...), should we all stop having them? Get over it.

    No, but we should investigate potential threats to my safety. That's sort of what I pay tax for.
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday May 05, 2007 @07:41PM (#19006077) Homepage Journal
    As far as I'm aware, he didn't threaten to shoot anyone.

    And I remember a time where the only person you couldn't threaten to shoot was the president.

    I find it interesting that 9/11 was almost 6 years ago.. there's people turning 18 now who were 12 or 13 when 9/11 happened. I dunno about you, but when I was 12 or 13 I had little concept of what freedoms adults had in society. As such, this year a whole generation of kids who have been raised in this 'political climate' are coming of age.

    How will they see free speech and protest?

    How might they vote?
  • by elborrachogato ( 1081195 ) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @09:08PM (#19006657)
    I'm betting the person responsible for firing him was female. I can't stand working under a woman... A few months ago a co-worker got fired for saying a certain design looked "a little gay".. word got passed around by 2 other female employees and when the director heard she just stormed out of her office knocking over several chairs and started screaming at this poor dude firing him on the spot. The thing that sucked the worst was that he was one of the few hard working employees we had and it took us weeks of busting our asses to recover.
  • Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by toby ( 759 ) * on Saturday May 05, 2007 @09:16PM (#19006711) Homepage Journal
  • by Nazlfrag ( 1035012 ) on Saturday May 05, 2007 @10:31PM (#19007115) Journal
    Booze is the #1 chemical alteration people use to enjoy life. Would you ban that? If you need help to enjoy life on a day to day basis, the solution inevitably will be drugs. Synthetic pharmaceutical drugs with hazardous and potentially life threatening consequences. Some prefer natural and safer alternatives, regardless of their legal status. Our society should treat us as intelligent adults capable of making our own choices, not naughty children who don't know what's good for them. This is especially true for pot flavoured candy, something which only dentists should object to.
  • Re:Also (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Thornae ( 53316 ) on Sunday May 06, 2007 @06:41AM (#19009107)
    I hate to tell you this, but you can not fire people, even contractors, for just ANY reason.

    Just FYI, and to show you that the US isn't the only Western country with a fascist government, in Australia... you can.

    Under our Glorious Leader's "Work Choices" legislation, companies with less than 100 employees are exempt from the Unfair Dismissal laws. You're pregnant? Bye! You're Asian? Sorry! You're not willing to work unpaid overtime? Seeya!

    (Okay, it's not quite that out of hand, but it's getting there. My sister was fired for being a volunteer fire-fighter.)
  • Re:Hoplophiliacs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by quag7 ( 462196 ) on Sunday May 06, 2007 @10:46AM (#19010213) Homepage
    This is long. You may want to skip it. It's kind of a rant.

    I honestly have to assume that at least some people who are afraid of guns and gun owners watch a hell of a lot of television. It's also fairly interesting the amount of stereotyping which goes on unchallenged about gun owners and their motivations. In many cases the people who routinely stereotype gun owners are the same ones who get bent out of shape when they, themselves, are stereotyped in some way.

    My gun has killed a few hundred soda cans.

    That's it.

    All of the time and energy that could be spent actually trying to do something to address the completely fucked way this culture has come to regard and often glorify violence is spent in this bizarrely misguided struggle to take guns away from the people least likely to abuse them, and then money and time spent fighting these same efforts - money that could be used for gun safety education or some other effort to address the disturbing turn this country has taken in the past few years. I *am* afraid. I am afraid of the complete lack of ethics or sense of citizenship - by which I mean membership in and ownership of a society - that people seem to feel. I watch people litter and tag their own communities, pissing in the proverbial same river they drink from. It makes no sense to me. I certainly do not think that violence *isn't* a problem or that violence is over-hyped. There's a problem in the US, and it needs addressing - we have become an ugly, decadent culture, somehow...

    But the guns follow; they certainly do not lead. If that was the case, we would have had the problems we have now a hundred years ago.

    But the tone of this debate isn't helping. I admit that I contribute to it because I get wound up, insulted, and feel threatened sometimes by things I hear others advocate which would directly impact me, personally.

    Most disturbing is the sanctimonious "I am so incredibly enlightened" attitude that some people who have an agenda against gun owners seem to have. In particular, this is vexing coming from the Left, who will (rightly) point to the abuses of this administration and its taste for police-state style surveillance measures against its own citizens, the illegal detention of people they refuse to charge with a crime, phony wars fought under completely false pretexts, and so on. And yet they will, in the end, suggest to you that they are entirely comfortable with this government having a completely monopoly on guns. In the end, even the loudest critics of government, would not want to be far from the safety of its embrace. Which is revolting to me, personally, but there it is.

    There are people who, even after all of the incompetence, malfeasance, corruption, and crass cruelty of this administration, still trust them more than they do their neighbors. It really bothered me to watch the gun confiscation that went on in New Orleans, even when something that everyone said was impossible happened - and civilization broke down completely. There were few police around at all, but there were enough, apparently, to take guns from homeowners and residents, leaving them at the mercy of looters and criminals. This scenario was, until Katrina, a supposedly paranoid hypothetical that people claimed time and time again would not - and could not - happen in modern America. And yet, it did, and the police did the absolute worst thing they could (The NRA actually sued over this, and won).

    If you ask me who we should really be afraid of, it's not peaceable gun owners. It's people who are paranoid and afraid of the freedoms of others. It's not just the serious, organized, politically active gun control advocates either - it's the people who think all homosexuals are potential pedophiles, or people who want to control what you can read or watch or listen to. It's the person in the room who wants all conversations sanitized because someone *might* be offended by something being discussed. Its the busybodies who report their neighbors to H
  • Re:Also (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jstomel ( 985001 ) on Sunday May 06, 2007 @01:07PM (#19011277)
    I work in a science lab. Recently a new rule was instituted, you can't throw anything that might concievably have been used to do science (which, being a science lab, is pretty much everything we use) in the trash. Apparently the janatorial staff had seen some tubes in the trash and were worried about catching some horrible mutant disease or something, dispite the fact that we don't actually work with any horrible mutant diseases. Whatever. My point is people will freak out and get scared over totally stupid shit all the time. If you respond by firing every employee who manages to scare the most scarable employee you will eventually end up with an organization that consists of one employee. And you will end up with science labs where no one is allowed to do science and janitors paid to empty trash bins with nothing in them.

You have a message from the operator.

Working...