Man fired for hobby? They can do this?

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:56 pm

Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:calling a job boring, or bitching about your boss is one thing, saying your gonna do a 9/11 whilst working at an airport is another thing.

On that we can totally agree.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:06 pm

I mean if I worked in a school and said I was going to touch kids youd think it was wrong.
If I work in a gun shop and say im gonna shoot ppl, you would say that was wrong
If I work in an airport and say im gonnado a 9/11, you would say its wrong.

So [composite word including 'f*ck'] him, he cant see the connection he doesnt deserve the job.

not a good mood tonight..

jboyler · Post by **jboyler** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:34 pm

Keep in mind that this man is charged with the responsibility of protecting his nation, enforcing security, and protecting the lives of innocent civilians. I find it very disturbing and pathetic that anyone wants to give this guy a break. There is a very real difference between making this sort of threat yourself and writing fiction about someone else doing it. If you don't see the difference there, I really feel sorry for you.

I'm in the military, I am charged with the same responsibility of defending national security, and if I said something like this I would be in jail so fast my head would spin.

Even if he wasn't sincere in his threats, he is still bound by two little things called 'tact' and 'prudence'. Anybody with two functioning brain cells should know better than to say intentionally inflammatory things like this.

This was about as smart as pissing on an electric fence.

-J

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:57 am

Before you read anything I write, let me just say this. Everyone's opinions on anything on predicated on three things: What people believe to be good, true, or possible.

Personally, I don't believe in universal morality. I think morality is a social construction. I don't think there's wrong and right. So when the Professor says, "When you say, 'it's just not right', it's time for me to cash in my arguement chips and walk away from the table, 'cause we ain't goin' nowhere," I tend to agree with him.

There is a very real difference between making this sort of threat yourself and writing fiction about someone else doing it.

Yes, but isn't this guy writing fiction about someone else doing it? Insofar as hip hop artists are performers, ie Eminem, the guy who wants to have sex with his own Mom and kill the mother of his children while his daughter watches, isn't the same guy as Marshall Mathers. Eminem is his stage persona where he says inflammatory things as art. Same goes for someone like Marilyn Manson.

I'm in the military, I am charged with the same responsibility of defending national security, and if I said something like this I would be in jail so fast my head would spin.

That's true, and that's why we're called "civillians". We have freedom of speech: we are not beholden to a large government organization where we are contractually obligated to accept their dogma. As I think you'd agree, even though you feel working baggage claim and being in the military have "the same responsiblity of defending national security," I don't think it's anywhere to the same degree, and the restrictions and regulations that the military have are (and should be) to a much greater extent then working at an airport.

Even if he wasn't sincere in his threats, he is still bound by two little things called 'tact' and 'prudence'. Anybody with two functioning brain cells should know better than to say intentionally inflammatory things like this.

Yes, I DO think he's guilty of lacking tact or prudence, but only if he brought it into the workplace. For example, let's go back to the child molesting thing. Let's say I've worked with kids for 20 years. Never had a single incident of anything bad happening. Now you find out that I've been writing erotic fiction on a website for 5 years about having sex with kids. Now, should I be fired? My job hasn't been compromised. I clearly have a sexual attraction towards children, and instead of turning into a rapist, I have channeled my desires into a safe and harmless expression.

Metal Vendetta · Post by **Metal Vendetta** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:00 am

My 2 cents -

When I worked in Boots I wrote short stories about an employee who was working at Boots and rippin them off with all his mates, because I really hated the company and it gave me something to smile at. This was entirely possible.

While I was working for Corporatc I started writing a novel about how some guy who was apparently working IT in this crappy IT company was actually planning to take down half the Funds in London because he'd managed to acquire all the passwords to their servers, throwing the stock market into chaos etc. This was fully possible also.

We all fantasise at work about how easy it would be to take down the company that we work for. And some of us create stuff based around those themes. Sometimes the stuff we come up with isn't acceptable in wider society, and that's fair enough, but I understand his grief that Eminem can rap about these things but he can't...

I dunno. I can see both sides. I'm inclined to come down on the side of the rapper, but that's just me.

So

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:57 am

And to play Devil's Advocate on our viewpoint, you KNOW that if that guy ended up ever actually committing a terrorist act, everyone would go, "Well you knew he was rapping about it, WHY didn't you throw him in jail then??? There's blood on your hands!!"

Actually, now that I wrote it, that smacks of Columbinesque illogicality.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:37 am

yep I think everyone thinks of nice lil ideas in the work place, but what hes talking about is a 9/11 esque plot, which lets face it, in the modern world, in his postion, isnt somthing u joke about to easily

you know, to write a rap, not one, but alot of raps, talking about the same thing over and over, isnt like a rap, its obsseive nature, hes repating himself like hes trying to make a point.
Its not the same as using it once in your rap, this guy is going on, and on, and on, about the same thing over and over, likes hes trying to a prove a point to you.

And at that point I find it dangerous, I mean pll express themselves in different ways.

For example im an artist, if I had that guys job, and you walked into my flat one day to find loads of pictures of planes flying into buildings and blowing up and stuff, wouldnt you raise an eyebrow?

Its a pretty odd strain of thinking, its hardley normall? whats his issue? I mean most ppl who rap, have an issue, they are talking about somthing, these thoughts come from your brain. and when u keep shouting about the same thing, your trying to make a point, be it drawing pictures, or writting raps. its all used as an expression of yourself.

Its a bit fruit loop in my mind, I understand what ppl are saying about rights and ****, but I just wouldnt take the risk with some prick who wants to rap about dis-tastefull issues like this.
I mean if I was writting loads of storys about pedophilla, or perhaps beating up white black guys because I enjoy it, or my fantasy support of the Nazi party. how many letters must I write before I cant say its fiction?
Its pretty convienet to just oh its fiction ill demonstrate.

I ******* hate niggers, I hope they all burn and die.

Oh thats not what I think, its just fiction, its fiction based on a racist guy. erm yeah, i like this, I can just say, write, rap, or draw what I like and pass it off as fiction in my defence. wicked...

I love lil girls, the 5 year old ones who are to naive to understand what im doing to them! - they love it when i touch them!

whats that? thats sick? - sorry its fiction based on a pedophile. yes thats right...

I want to get hold of some planes and fly them into some buildings and kill all these dumb yanks!!

Sorry, did I offend someone?, dont worry, its fiction based upon a terroist subject...

I think everyone who cant see the light in this thread is a stupid **** who should have thier balls driven into the ground!

thats not very nice, sorry, thats just fiction based on an sarcastic arrogant ****...

-------------
hmm bit odd init really?

whats the term, bit close to the mark?

Post by **Best First** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:42 am

meh. balls to him. idiot.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:23 pm

The rapper guy is nuts. Or at least iffy. Lock him away.
I hope no-one thought I was on HIS side while I was talking about the Friends Reunited thing - 'cos I wasn't. I was just trying to bring in another similar element to add to the discussion from another point.

I'm rather crap at the debating thing. Sorry.

Shanti418 · Post by **Shanti418** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:38 pm

And I must still respectfully disagree with the lot of you.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:40 pm

Shanti418 wrote:And I must still respectfully disagree with the lot of you.

No, I really AM crap at the debating/discussion thing.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:20 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:This sounds close to a mostly Republican company firing someone for being openly Democratic.

Case in point:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0721053bush1.html

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:33 pm

Shanti418 wrote:And I must still respectfully disagree with the lot of you.

I cant see how.

This is his defence 'its fiction' - yeah right, thats sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo convienent.

Do you know what im going to do? im going to make detailed plans of blowing up London, they will be totaly perfect. oh its fiction....

you have to ask this?

Why if you work at airport, where security is most likely very important would you even rap about such things. you should bloody know better, and hence you dont get to work there.

the world is PC mad.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:38 pm

Generally, I'm about as anti-Homeland Security as you can get. And I, a practicing and faithful Mormon, am publishing a short story about someone doubting the hell out of the Mormon Church.

All that said, I am siding with Impy. Artistic expression is not independent of the artist's feelings. The Stephen King stories I have read don't glorify killing, pedophelia or rape; they just show how very scary some of these things are. Mr. King is siding with the rest of us in being scared of evil. He is just good at showing how scary it is, and how personal it can be.

I mean, as far as I remember, Ice-T actually was a cop killer. The Red Hot Chili Peppers actually did shoot heroin under a bridge downtown. Thom Yorke does indeed feel like a bit of a creep.

Honestly, I can see the defensibility of this guy's position (they're just song lyrics) but I can't help thinking: why song lyrics about terrorism? What's the purpose? What does the guy actually feel? Is he just bulls**tting to try and cause a sensation? How can you write songs about things you don't care for?

The pedophelia question: Shanti, I don't think anyone writing stories about pedophelia would be channeling their feelings in a positive direction, especially if anyone else reads their stories and it feeds their fantasies. Erotic poetry is nice when you're turned on and alone with your partner, but does anyone actually read it on the tube? That kind of stuff evokes certain feelings.

Which leads into a much bigger and much more difficult question, a question whose answer lies in moral ground that is difficult for me: what is the morality for the arts? Do artists, writers, musicians, have a responsibility to write things that are, in some way, edifying? Or that at least serve a purpose? Does every art form serve a purpose? You can argue that Harry Potter teaches kids indirectly to be resourceful, courageous and confront evil. It also indirectly debunks a lot of sexist crap about women's abilities in school (Hermione) and about race (Mudbloods and Muggles, etc). But then, if we question the purpose of Harry Potter, we have to wade through the utter bulls**t of the stance that it indirectly promotes witchcraft. (and that witchcraft is always bad.)

I'm going to have to say that art does have a purpose, though it is indirect. What you watch, listen to, and read affects your brain, though the writer or artist may not have intended it that way. This doesn't mean we should restrict ourselves solely to good clean music and books and avoid anything with a hint of darkness. But maybe, as artists ourselves, we have a requirement to be good people.

I hate saying this kind of thing because people (specifically religious people) will run with it and say, "Yes! Morality in the arts! Show me only good clean stuff! Crucify Eminem!" That's ridiculous. You have to be able to show real evil and real flawed people in stories, songs and shows. You have to be honest and say that evil wins sometimes, or that it disguises itself as good. Shakespeare was unrelenting in showing people as they actually are, for instance.

But making art that actually glorifies an immoral, anti-human act like terrorism... I have a hard time believing that these lyrics are either 1)worth listening to at all, or 2) disconnected from the artist's feelings.

jboyler · Post by **jboyler** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:30 am

The Stephen King stories I have read don't glorify killing, pedophelia or rape; they just show how very scary some of these things are.

Also, Stephen King is an author. His job is to entertain us, and he has no responsibility other than to write good novels and make money.

The man in question is a law officer. His job and his responsibility are to protect us.

There is a very real difference here.

-J

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:07 pm

jboyler wrote:
The Stephen King stories I have read don't glorify killing, pedophelia or rape; they just show how very scary some of these things are.
Also, Stephen King is an author. His job is to entertain us, and he has no responsibility other than to write good novels and make money.

The man in question is a law officer. His job and his responsibility are to protect us.

There is a very real difference here.

-J

How is there a very real difference? I'm getting the impression that this rapper was trying to get discovered BEFORE he took the airport security gig.

This guy was writing fiction. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what he did and what Garth Ennis does with Preacher or Punisher. Their stories glorify killing for what their characters believe is a good cause. Are we to say that he can never work in a gun shop because of this?

I don't care if the guy's writing raps about killing babies that he's enjoyed raping for for the last six hours before filling them with C4 and tossing them from hot air balloons into a crowded football stadium. It's FICTION!!! And, it's protected (in the US) under the first ammendment. Freedom of speech.

This would be entirely different if he did an interview out of character saying that he would financially support bombing civillians. He's playing a character. He's doing almost exactly what professional wrestlers do by playing a character that he hopes will catch on with the audience.

You all seem to be intelligent people, I can't believe you have this kind of problem distinguishing fiction from reality.

Señior's Covenant · Post by **Señior's Covenant** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:23 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:
jboyler wrote:
The Stephen King stories I have read don't glorify killing, pedophelia or rape; they just show how very scary some of these things are.
Also, Stephen King is an author. His job is to entertain us, and he has no responsibility other than to write good novels and make money.

The man in question is a law officer. His job and his responsibility are to protect us.

There is a very real difference here.

-J
How is there a very real difference?

Because it's King's job to write such tales. This guy's job was a security screener at an airport. Dif-fer-ence.

Professor Smooth wrote:I'm getting the impression that this rapper was trying to get discovered BEFORE he took the airport security gig.

A, I don't see why. B, if that were the case and he were so intent on being a controversial rapper that rapped about things like performing terrorism, perhaps he should have sought out employment somewhere where it would not cause a conflict of interests and possibly get him fired down the line.

Professor Smooth wrote:This guy was writing fiction. There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between what he did and what Garth Ennis does with Preacher or Punisher. Their stories glorify killing for what their characters believe is a good cause. Are we to say that he can never work in a gun shop because of this?

Gunshop? Not sure. I know I'd not be comfortable with being in an arms establishment knowing the dude with the giant guncase behind him working the counter writes fiction about blowing people away.

MORE IMPORTANTLY to this, Ennis' job is to write such tales. Again, this guy's job was a security screener at an airport. Again, dif-fer-ence.

Professor Smooth wrote:I don't care if the guy's writing raps about killing babies that he's enjoyed raping for for the last six hours before filling them with C4 and tossing them from hot air balloons into a crowded football stadium. It's FICTION!!! And, it's protected (in the US) under the first ammendment. Freedom of speech.

No one's saying he cannot rap about flying planes into buildings. They're saying he can't do it and work in a ******* airport. Kind of like the way I doubt a guy rapping about killing babies that he's enjoyed raping for for the last six hours before filling them with C4 and tossing them from hot air balloons into a crowded football stadium would be highly successful in either getting or keeping a job in a Day Care center or sports stadium.

Professor Smooth wrote:This would be entirely different if he did an interview out of character saying that he would financially support bombing civillians.

True, he'd be under arrest, rather than let go by the airport he worked for.

Professor Smooth wrote:You all seem to be intelligent people...

Aw, you're sweet.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:29 pm

Some people simply can't fully seperate fact from fiction or art from artist. Fine. Perhaps you'd like to go join the parents television council or protest the existance of GTA? I believe the website's www.ptc.org.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:46 pm

yeah and some ppl cant see when fact is NOT fiction.

and in this case it doesnt take a genius to realise whos using a single word to fool you.

Señior's Covenant · Post by **Señior's Covenant** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:50 pm

Professor Smooth wrote:Some people simply can't fully seperate fact from fiction or art from artist.

I'm sure that's true. I'm not one of them and trying to make me into one is quite the strawman. I fully realize that as the facts sit this guy is a baggage screener at an airport (or was) and that in his spare time he was trying to start a rapping career. Sorted.

I am also fully aware that given terrorist actions resulting in the horrid events of 9/11 and suicide bombers popping up here and there in this day & age, this guy is a ******* dip**** and goddamn moron for thinking he can comfortably work as a security officer at an airport facility, rap about mass murdering people, bombs, and flying planes into buildings. It would be like a German rapper who is in a command position in an army rapping like he's going to be the next Hitler while working in a Jewish community.

And there's a reason the word "terror" exists. People get scared and edgy about ****. This numbnut should have known better, that's what this boils down to. Again, if he was so set on being a controversial rapper that spilled lyrics about mass-murdering folks with terrorists acts mayhaps he should have sought out employment somewhere where it would not cause a conflict of interests and likely get him fired down the line when it was discovered. Speaking of which, his own statement: "I kept my music and my job separate. I told a couple of people who I thought was cool with me at work that I rapped, but I never sat there and told them lyrics or anything," said Khalaf. "I guess somebody probably told them that I had a Web site." Seems as though he thought it might not be prudent to spill the beans on his alter-ego artist-self while at work. Gee, wonder why.

But hey, look on the bright side. Now this guy has a nice big chance to really focus on his career of being the "Arabic Assassin", rapping in a post September 11th America, being of middle eastern lineage, rapping about being a "crazy, suicidal Arabic equipped with bombs" and threatening to fly a plane into a building on September 11, 2005. I'm sure he'll go far.

Still kills me he was working at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport.

Impactor returns 2.0 · Post by **Impactor returns 2.0** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:14 pm

exactly - hes a stupid dick head for not realising whats his so called fictions is about is dumb in his postion.

which must make you, stupid?

stupid ppl cant do his job

done.

sprunkner · Post by **sprunkner** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:40 pm

All right... slight alteration of stance... I'm still with Impy morally and philosophically, but I have to side with Smooth in saying that his job should be protected under the First Amendment. We have to take the stupid excesses of free speech (Fox News Channel included) along with the blessings.

All said, the guy's a f***ing idiot.

Señior's Covenant · Post by **Señior's Covenant** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:46 pm

sprunkner wrote:...but I have to side with Smooth in saying that his job should be protected under the First Amendment.

Doesn't protect him at the workplace. His constitutional rights to say what he wants in his rap lyrics are not being violated. His former place of employment fired him over an issue that regarded company policies and business appearance. If I were to walk into the boss's office and scream "[composite word including 'f*ck'] you!" to her face, I should not expect to stay in my duties by right of the first amendment. More accurately, if I were to walk into the showroom and scream "[composite word including 'f*ck'] you!" to a customer I didn't like I shouldn't expect to be employed at the end of the day by right of the first amendment. Also were I working in a bank and wrote rap songs in my spare time on the intricacies of me robbing banks I shouldn't be shocked when I'm let go. Maddox is rather opinionated, and him keeping a job as a bookkeeper for a lesbian coalition would seem rather unlikely, you know?

He's free to say what he wants, unless it butts heads with the contracts and policies of his employer.

Professor Smooth · Post by **Professor Smooth** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:48 pm

sprunkner wrote:All right... slight alteration of stance... I'm still with Impy morally and philosophically, but I have to side with Smooth in saying that his job should be protected under the First Amendment. We have to take the stupid excesses of free speech (Fox News Channel included) along with the blessings.

All said, the guy's a f***ing idiot.

Yeah, that works for me.