State attorney launches bizarre Internet war on openly gay college student

In summary, Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has created a blog devoted to discrediting the University of Michigan's student body president, who is openly gay. Shirvell scours Armstrong's Facebook page and Armstrong's friends' Facebook pages and posts defaced photos of Armstrong on his site. Cooper noted that Shirvell's actions amount to hate mongering and that he's the sitting president of a student government.
  • #1
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
24,017
3,337
An assistant state attorney general for Michigan has created a blog devoted to discrediting the University of Michigan's student body president, who is openly gay.

Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has called student Chris Armstrong a "pervert" and "Satan's representative" on his blog, and admits to protesting outside the 21-year-old's home. He scours Armstrong's Facebook page and Armstrong's friends' Facebook pages and posts defaced photos of Armstrong on his site.

"You might wonder how is this man still employed in the attorney general's office," CNN's Anderson Cooper observed in a Tuesday-night segment on Shirvell.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100929/us_yblog_upshot/state-attorney-launches-bizarre-internet-war-on-openly-gay-college-student;_ylt=AhXNSpSGQD8oYgT.j_UZkXtH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTVyZGQ0ZG50BGFzc2V0Ay9zL3libG9nX3Vwc2hvdC8yMDEwMDkyOS91c195YmxvZ191cHNob3Qvc3RhdGUtYXR0b3JuZXktbGF1bmNoZXMtYml6YXJyZS1pbnRlcm5ldC13YXItb24tb3Blbmx5LWdheS1jb2xsZWdlLXN0dWRlbnQEY2NvZGUDbXBfZWNfOF8xMARjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNtaWNoc3RhdGVvZmY-

Don't the actions of Shirvell, the assistant state attorney general for Michigan amount to hate mongering?

Watch the interview Anderson Cooper has with Shirvell.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm very surprised people around here are standing for this. Ann Arbor is a very very (very) liberal town, although Michigan's government is full of pushovers who won't take actions against fellow officials unless enough people starting breathing down their necks *cough*Granholm and Kwami*cough*.
 
  • #3
What a troll, though I already knew that government lawyers are corrupt and insane. o_O
 
  • #4
Maybe I've overlooked something while skimming, but it doesn't look like hate-mongering. It just looks like the usual garbage about politics you see on internet forums.
 
  • #5
Hurkyl said:
Maybe I've overlooked something while skimming, but it doesn't look like hate-mongering. It just looks like the usual garbage about politics you see on internet forums.
Except this is an assistant attorney general making insane personal attacks on a college student because he's gay.

You must have overlooked something. Most attoney generals don't paste swastikas over the face of college students and call them Satan's Representative, stalk them and their friends, and show up at the student's house carrying hate signs.

Did you watch the interview?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
The comments on video boards across the Net are dumping accusations about Shirvell's own sexuality.
 
  • #8
Hurkyl said:
Maybe I've overlooked something while skimming, but it doesn't look like hate-mongering. It just looks like the usual garbage about politics you see on internet forums.
I think it does go beyond garden variety internet forum politicking and crosses into actual mongering. Whether it is hate he is mongering or something else, I don't know yet, but when you dedicate an entire blog to attacking one person (or group of people), as opposed to posting incidental thoughts on some forum, that counts to me as a propaganda campaign aimed at provoking a reaction of some kind.

hatemonger

* a person who kindles hatred, enmity, or prejudice in others

* a propagandist who seeks to provoke hatred and prejudice, esp. against a minority group or groups

(asterisks are links to definitions)
 
  • #9
Newai said:
The comments on video boards across the Net are dumping accusations about Shirvell's own sexuality.

well, it would be too easy to make some judgements based on stereotype.

but, this thing appears a bit crude and contrived, to me. sometimes the best way to promote a candidate is to set up a false scenario where it appears they are being attacked.
 
  • #10
Proton Soup said:
well, it would be too easy to make some judgements based on stereotype.

but, this thing appears a bit crude and contrived, to me. sometimes the best way to promote a candidate is to set up a false scenario where it appears they are being attacked.

Tthe guy is the sitting president of a student government. It's not like he's running for Congress or something.
 
  • #11
Office_Shredder said:
Tthe guy is the sitting president of a student government. It's not like he's running for Congress or something.

yeah, i don't get it either. maybe some kind of fraternity thing? it would be easier to accept if Shirvell has been politically active in a similar way in the past.
 
  • #12
Proton Soup said:
yeah, i don't get it either. maybe some kind of fraternity thing? it would be easier to accept if Shirvell has been politically active in a similar way in the past.

http://www.michigandaily.com/content/noel-gordon-first-they-came-president

He has a long history of launching personal attacks against members of LGBTQ community, abortion rights supporters and congressional Democrats.

Why do you assume he hasn't done this before? It's really hard to find anything one way or the other since everything on google is about this latest incident
 
  • #13
Office_Shredder said:
http://www.michigandaily.com/content/noel-gordon-first-they-came-president
Why do you assume he hasn't done this before? It's really hard to find anything one way or the other since everything on google is about this latest incident

thanks for digging that up.

why? his attacks just seem really low-brow. it's hard to imagine that this is the work of a state attorney. is his work this crude? bizarre is certainly the right word.
 
  • #14
I wonder if this AAG has a little crush that he doesn't know how to deal with? It wouldn't be the first time hatred was the result of unwanted feelings surfacing. It really doesn't matter WHY at this point... the man needs to be fired for what he's done, but also because any time a gay individual is involved in a case with Shirvell, it's going to be an issue.

Really, what a pathetic human being, followed closely by the Michigan AG who's letting him keep his job.
 
  • #15
Evo said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100929/us_yblog_upshot/state-attorney-launches-bizarre-internet-war-on-openly-gay-college-student;_ylt=AhXNSpSGQD8oYgT.j_UZkXtH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTVyZGQ0ZG50BGFzc2V0Ay9zL3libG9nX3Vwc2hvdC8yMDEwMDkyOS91c195YmxvZ191cHNob3Qvc3RhdGUtYXR0b3JuZXktbGF1bmNoZXMtYml6YXJyZS1pbnRlcm5ldC13YXItb24tb3Blbmx5LWdheS1jb2xsZWdlLXN0dWRlbnQEY2NvZGUDbXBfZWNfOF8xMARjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNtaWNoc3RhdGVvZmY-

Don't the actions of Shirvell, the assistant state attorney general for Michigan amount to hate mongering?

Watch the interview Anderson Cooper has with Shirvell.

Just a Jack Thompson wannabe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
nismaratwork said:
I wonder if this AAG has a little crush that he doesn't know how to deal with? It wouldn't be the first time hatred was the result of unwanted feelings surfacing. It really doesn't matter WHY at this point... the man needs to be fired for what he's done, but also because any time a gay individual is involved in a case with Shirvell, it's going to be an issue.

Really, what a pathetic human being, followed closely by the Michigan AG who's letting him keep his job.

Mike Cox Slams Andrew Shirvell For Blog - Chris Armstrong Watch

I found it a bit of rambling of a slightly immature adult. And I was a bit shocked by it...

Quite frankly, I feel embarrassed for Mr. Armstrong - that he has this unwanted attention. But again, Anderson, this is speech put on a blog. And if you think about it, when we start censoring blogs or having workplace punishment for off-duty free speech, where do we draw the line?

He also discussed a few scenarios where it would become appropriate to fire Shirvell. The article doesn't mention them, but they aren't hard to guess. If Shirvell identifies himself as the Assistant Attorney General in his comments, then he's speaking as a representative of the government and he can be fired for his speech.

Even though it's not hard to identify public officials when they make public speech (which his blog and facebook comments are), as long as he's speaking solely on his own dime, then he's legally safe (at least theoretically - there's actually mixed results as to how well that has worked out for other people).
 
  • #17
BobG said:
Mike Cox Slams Andrew Shirvell For Blog - Chris Armstrong Watch



He also discussed a few scenarios where it would become appropriate to fire Shirvell. The article doesn't mention them, but they aren't hard to guess. If Shirvell identifies himself as the Assistant Attorney General in his comments, then he's speaking as a representative of the government and he can be fired for his speech.

Even though it's not hard to identify public officials when they make public speech (which his blog and facebook comments are), as long as he's speaking solely on his own dime, then he's legally safe (at least theoretically - there's actually mixed results as to how well that has worked out for other people).

Don't slam him, fire him. End of story. Anything less is just running at the mouth. In theory Shirvell might be safe, but if fired he wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning a lawsuit to regain his job.
 
  • #18
waht said:
'm a Christian citizen exercising my First Amendment rights," Shirvell told CNN's Anderson Cooper
Enough said.
Enough said? Exactly what are you saying here, waht?

Are you saying that Shirvell is perfectly within his First Amendment rights, enough said?
Or are you saying that Christians have no First Ammendment rights, enough said?
Or are you saying something completely different, enough said?

In any case, I would say not near enough said.The First Amendment does not exist to protect benign speech, insipid speech, or speech with which almost everyone agrees. It exists to protect ugly, distasteful, politically charged speech with which almost everyone disagrees. There are limits to ones' First Amendment rights, and being a government employee does place some additional restrictions. However, the discussion in this thread is not whether Shirvell has crossed the boundary between protected and restricted speech. The discussion is just on the fact that Shirvell's speech is ugly, distasteful, and stupid. Yep, it is, and so what?
 
  • #19
D H said:
The First Amendment does not exist to protect benign speech, insipid speech, or speech with which almost everyone agrees. It exists to protect ugly, distasteful, politically charged speech with which almost everyone disagrees. There are limits to ones' First Amendment rights, and being a government employee does place some additional restrictions. However, the discussion in this thread is not whether Shirvell has crossed the boundary between protected and restricted speech. The discussion is just on the fact that Shirvell's speech is ugly, distasteful, and stupid. Yep, it is, and so what?

The first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to a job. NOBODY is arguing he should be fined or arrested for his speech. I argue that his actions show immaturity and a lack of character, and the state has a right to base employment decisions on that.
 
  • #20
nismaratwork said:
Don't slam him, fire him. End of story. Anything less is just running at the mouth. In theory Shirvell might be safe, but if fired he wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning a lawsuit to regain his job.

wait a minute, you're saying to fire him because you think you can get away with it?
 
  • #21
Proton Soup said:
wait a minute, you're saying to fire him because you think you can get away with it?

I'm saying that in addition to his obvious mental issues, lack of restraint and maturity, and other good reasons to fire him, he ALSO wouldn't have a chance to regain his job. I'm emphasizing the absurd decision of the AG to retain someone (while clearly pushing for him to voluntarily resign) he calls a grunt, immature, etc. So no, I'm not saying just do it because you can "get away with it", which by the way implies that firing him would in some way require less than honest tactics. Is that what you're trying to say?
 
  • #22
nismaratwork said:
I'm saying that in addition to his obvious mental issues, lack of restraint and maturity, and other good reasons to fire him, he ALSO wouldn't have a chance to regain his job. I'm emphasizing the absurd decision of the AG to retain someone (while clearly pushing for him to voluntarily resign) he calls a grunt, immature, etc. So no, I'm not saying just do it because you can "get away with it", which by the way implies that firing him would in some way require less than honest tactics. Is that what you're trying to say?

yes, i think you clearly called for using less than honest tactics.
 
  • #23
It seems that the assistant DA is hiding behind his religion to justify attacks on a gay man. What would happen to him if he started harassing and personally attacking the student body president because he was black (instead of gay)?

I find it offensive in the extreme that it is (apparently) permissible for a public servant to publicly discriminate against anybody due to their sexual orientation. He should be out the door already. Michigan does not yet have a law that includes sexual orientation in the list of criteria that define "discrimination" though such laws are becoming more and more common.
 
  • #24
Proton Soup said:
yes, i think you clearly called for using less than honest tactics.

What tactics?
 
  • #25
D H said:
Enough said? Exactly what are you saying here, waht?

Are you saying that Shirvell is perfectly within his First Amendment rights, enough said?
Or are you saying that Christians have no First Ammendment rights, enough said?
Or are you saying something completely different, enough said?

In any case, I would say not near enough said.

Shirvell invoked his religion, which agrees with the trend across this country that this particular religion is against any sort of gay rights, let alone marriages. I believe that a slight perturbation towards fundamentalism is what motivated Shirvell to go off tangent and attack someone.

But I agree with you that my first post is ambiguous. It was typed on the fly.
 
  • #26
turbo-1 said:
I find it offensive in the extreme that it is (apparently) permissible for a public servant to publicly discriminate against anybody due to their sexual orientation. He should be out the door already. Michigan does not yet have a law that includes sexual orientation in the list of criteria that define "discrimination" though such laws are becoming more and more common.

It is not (apparently) permissible for a public servant to publicly discriminate against anybody due to the sexual orientation. Check out Shirvell's blog and tie that blog directly to Michigan's Assistant Attorney General. Sure it's common knowledge that Shirvell writes the blog, and it's also common knowledge that Shirvell happens to be Assistant Attorney General.

As the situation currently stands, Michigan would have a very hard time using that blog as a reason to fire Shirvell without facing a lawsuit.

But, just to throw gas on the fire just for the heck of it - one wonders if the fact that Shirvell has served in Cox's past election campaigns makes Cox less than enthusiastic about firing a loyal supporter or more enthusiastic to find a way of ridding himself of damaging baggage.
 
  • #27
BobG said:
It is not (apparently) permissible for a public servant to publicly discriminate against anybody due to the sexual orientation. Check out Shirvell's blog and tie that blog directly to Michigan's Assistant Attorney General. Sure it's common knowledge that Shirvell writes the blog, and it's also common knowledge that Shirvell happens to be Assistant Attorney General.

As the situation currently stands, Michigan would have a very hard time using that blog as a reason to fire Shirvell without facing a lawsuit.

But, just to throw gas on the fire just for the heck of it - one wonders if the fact that Shirvell has served in Cox's past election campaigns makes Cox less than enthusiastic about firing a loyal supporter or more enthusiastic to find a way of ridding himself of damaging baggage.

How can someone who went so far as to protest outside this young man's house be allowed to retain a position of legal authority? You fire him, he sues, and that's how new case-law is MADE. No one is going to stop Shirvell from suing if he wants, and the fact that he'll likely lose is simply the evolution of the law. The fact is that there is such a thing as the APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY... and this actually goes beyond that into the realm of near-stalking.

If Michigan chooses to keep this man on as an AAG because they're afraid of the outcome of a lawsuit, that is rank cowardice. The only person who should be afraid of an incoming lawsuit is Shirvell, who's going to be facing this young man with the backing of god knows know many groups offering legal services. At the bare minimum he's facing libel (gay orgy, recruiting new students to be homosexual, etc... all libelous), and that's just what's known already.

You want a prediction?... the AG is trying to get this man to resign on his own to avoid that lawsuit, and that isn't the way this should be done. New laws need to be on the books so that some bigot can't spend the better part of half a year in an obsessive and truly bizarre crusade against a student. How can he remain viable in this job... hell, I'm sure past defendants of cases he's been involved with are already talking to their lawyers and thinking of ways to appeal based on this. It's a disgrace to Michigan, a shame on people who believe that this kind of hatred is part of a religion, and a pathetic expression of one man's inability to cope with something that has NO EFFECT on his life.

I don't usually go in for the "homophobes are closeted homosexuals" argument, but in this case you really have to wonder. Shirvell didn't add this kid to an existing anti-homosexual blog, he targeted him specifically; perhaps the young man made Shirvell uncomfortable for reasons that having nothing to do with religion or free speech.
 
  • #28
nismaratwork said:
I'm saying that in addition to his obvious mental issues, lack of restraint and maturity, and other good reasons to fire him, he ALSO wouldn't have a chance to regain his job. I'm emphasizing the absurd decision of the AG to retain someone (while clearly pushing for him to voluntarily resign) he calls a grunt, immature, etc. So no, I'm not saying just do it because you can "get away with it", which by the way implies that firing him would in some way require less than honest tactics. Is that what you're trying to say?
Just because it's about time I agreed with you on something, I'll agree with you. The only issue I see is if he has a guarantee of employment contract, and even then it probably allows termination in this case.

Worst case scenario is that the employment contract requires a severance payment, but in this case, I say just pay it they have to to get rid of this guy.
nismaratwork said:
Shirvell didn't add this kid to an existing anti-homosexual blog, he targeted him specifically; perhaps the young man made Shirvell uncomfortable for reasons that having nothing to do with religion or free speech.
Or maybe he rejected Shirvell's advances?
 
  • #29
Al68 said:
Just because it's about time I agreed with you on something, I'll agree with you. The only issue I see is if he has a guarantee of employment contract, and even then it probably allows termination in this case.

Worst case scenario is that the employment contract requires a severance payment, but in this case, I say just pay it they have to to get rid of this guy.Or maybe he rejected Shirvell's advances?

Oh to get this guy out of public service, I agree, pay him and be done with it. The last statement... I have to assume that if there was previous contact we'd have heard about it, but if that is the case, what a way to handle rejection! If a man were doing this to a woman, restraining orders would be just the beginning. One question I have is why the student seems to have done relatively little in terms of pursuing a lawsuit sooner? I'm a little unclear on the time-line.

Oh, and Al68, just because we're on completely different ends of the political spectrum doesn't mean we can't agree on a host of other issues. I'm more than happy to argue like mad when we're talking about rep/dem/etc... but I leave it in those threads. Mheslep for instance, rarely sees eye to eye with me (or visa versa) in politics, but elsewhere I respect his knowledge a great deal. It's just one of those oddities in a site where you discuss a host of issues with the same people.
 
  • #30
I never thought I'd see the day when P&WA posters where advocating that the government force political opinions upon civil servants.
 
  • #31
Gokul43201 said:
I think it does go beyond garden variety internet forum politicking and crosses into actual mongering.
Fair enough; I had the more extreme stuff in mind, rather than something I could have imagined a couple of the P&WA posters of old could have done.
 
  • #32
nismaratwork said:
What tactics?

nismaratwork said:
Don't slam him, fire him. End of story. Anything less is just running at the mouth. In theory Shirvell might be safe, but if fired he wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning a lawsuit to regain his job.

the tactic is to fire him, though you think "in theory" he "might be safe". which i interpret to mean as, you believe he probably has a right to do this. but you also think he won't win a lawsuit to regain his job, which means you think you can violate his rights but get away with it.

i'm sure this is already a common line of reasoning in state AG offices, but it's not an ethic we need more of.
 
  • #33
Proton Soup said:
the tactic is to fire him, though you think "in theory" he "might be safe". which i interpret to mean as, you believe he probably has a right to do this. but you also think he won't win a lawsuit to regain his job, which means you think you can violate his rights but get away with it.

i'm sure this is already a common line of reasoning in state AG offices, but it's not an ethic we need more of.

That doesn't answer the question, which is "what LESS THAN HONEST tactics" am I advocating? Firing someone in the secure knowledge that they don't have a case isn't dishonest. I'll ask you to retract your insult or actually back it up. I don't believe that firing him is a violation of his rights, nor is it dishonest. So... I'll ask for the second and last time: what tactics?
 
  • #34
Hurkyl said:
I never thought I'd see the day when P&WA posters where advocating that the government force political opinions upon civil servants.

He can keep his opinions, but having expressed them in such an incredibly abusive and inappropriate way for an agent of the judiciary, he can't keep his job. I realize that people seem to love to make everything a 1st amendment issue, but this is isn't. His own boss describes him as an "immature... grunt" who does "adequate" work. People get fired every day for putting the wrong photo on their facebook page, but this twit goes on a 6 month spree against some random college student and his job is safe? Please...
 
  • #35
nismaratwork said:
but having expressed them ... for an agent of the judiciary
Where did he express them as an agent of the judiciary?

People get fired every day for putting the wrong photo on their facebook page,
And we generally condemn their bosses for doing so, don't we? Heaven forbid the Government uphold the standard we want employers to uphold. :smile:
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top