D H said:Okay! Thanks for taking the discussion up a notch, everyone.
That Shrivell has said and done some hateful, disgusting things is rather obvious. Nobody has disagreed with that. The real issues here are (1) whether those hateful, disgusting things fall within or outside of the bounds of protected speech, (2) whether those acts constitute a fireable offense, and (3) whether he even needs to be fired.
Freedom of speech is not an absolute protection. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected, nor is stalking, and even being a public nuisance can fall outside the bounds of protected speech. Just because Shrivell is claiming that what he is doing is protected speech does not mean that it is. And just because it is protected speech does not mean that his employment is protected.
I suspect that since the AG is an elected position, AAG is a political appointment rather than a merit-based promotion. This means that Shrivell most likely signed a resignation letter the very day he accepted the position of AAG. That in turn would mean that Cox doesn't really have to fire Shrivell. He just has to accept Shrivell's resignation.
Jack21222 said:My thoughts are:
1) Yes, it is protected speech.
2) Whether he can be fired depends entirely on his contract.
3) If he can be fired for it, he should be. He shows a lack of maturity, integrity, judgment, morals and basic human decency which makes him unqualified for any job that requires contact with humans.
nismaratwork said: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?
Proton Soup said:i've already answered that. you said that in theory he might be safe, but go ahead and fire him anyway.
nismaratwork said:No Proton, I said that even if he sued he wouldn't have a chance, to highlight the clear cronyism of Cox the AG. You can try to spin this, or you can man up and admit that you were wrong... I don't care which at this point, the posts are there for everyone to read.
Firing a lunatic (and I don't use that term often) from such an important public office when as I've noted in a previous post, he's far exceeded grounds for firing, is NOT dishonest. Observing that he would be unable to mount a winning defense is also not dishonest. Once again, feel free to retract your statement, but at this point leaving it out there is no longer an issue... it just makes you look confused.
Proton Soup said:i don't think i misunderstood you. you like playing this game with monique, too. it would be simple enough to say that you think i misunderstood you, but for some reason you're getting incredibly wound up about it, and i just don't buy it.
Jack21222 said:My thoughts are:
1) Yes, it is protected speech.
2) Whether he can be fired depends entirely on his contract.
3) If he can be fired for it, he should be. He shows a lack of maturity, integrity, judgment, morals and basic human decency which makes him unqualified for any job that requires contact with humans.
Proton Soup said:i've already answered that. you said that in theory he might be safe, but go ahead and fire him anyway.
FlexGunship said:Proton, I think you're confused. Sorry. Don't mean to jump in the middle here. But to be safe "legally" does not necessarily imply employment security.
In other words: maintaining the bare minimum of "legal" status is not sufficient to keep a job.
True, Nismar is, perhaps, being a bit perfunctory in his judgement, but his push to "fire him" would be a reasonable reaction for any company of agency. We should be careful to note, however, that Nismar is not in charge of making employment decisions, so his statement is simply one of opinion (what he would do, if he had the choice).
Nismar, you are guilty of using "weasel words" twice, as I can see. Proton's confusion is warranted, and you shouldn't be put off by his request for clarification.
nismaratwork said:OK... two people saying this makes me stop and ask... what weasel words? If I'm doing PS a disservice here, I'll clarify my position.
FlexGunship said:Proton, I think you're confused. Sorry. Don't mean to jump in the middle here. But to be safe "legally" does not necessarily imply employment security.
In other words: maintaining the bare minimum of "legal" status is not sufficient to keep a job.
True, Nismar is, perhaps, being a bit perfunctory in his judgement, but his push to "fire him" would be a reasonable reaction for any company of agency. We should be careful to note, however, that Nismar is not in charge of making employment decisions, so his statement is simply one of opinion (what he would do, if he had the choice).
Nismar, you are guilty of using "weasel words" twice, as I can see. Proton's confusion is warranted, and you shouldn't be put off by his request for clarification.
The bad thing is that his leave is probably paid and includes all benefits.turbo-1 said:Shirvell has shut down his blog and is taking "personal leave" from his job. Apparently, when he returns to his job, he may be subject to a disciplinary hearing, but Cox is still not willing to fire him outright.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/andrew-shirvell-takes-per_n_746874.html
There seems to be a rather severe hole in this rationale -- the presumption that his behavior on his blog mirrors his behavior when in contact with humans on the job.Jack21222 said:3) If he can be fired for it, he should be. He shows a lack of maturity, integrity, judgment, morals and basic human decency which makes him unqualified for any job that requires contact with humans.
That brings up an interesting point, all of his work should be put through a review based on his abnormal behavior. Seriously, an assistant attorney general that has been banned from the campus of the University of Michigan due to his actions.Hurkyl said:There seems to be a rather severe hole in this rationale -- the presumption that his behavior on his blog mirrors his behavior when in contact with humans on the job.
That is pretty much a given.Proton Soup said:he may also have some mental/emotional difficulties for all i know.
I agree. That said, I think cause does exists, not so much in his written words (free speech and all that), but his harassment and stalking are a different story. Freedom of speech does not cover illegal acts such as harassment and stalking. Those are solid grounds for going after this guy.and again, my issue is not with whether or not Shirvell is a decent person or competent. my issue is that if and when he is dismissed, it should be done with clear cause.
Hurkyl said:There seems to be a rather severe hole in this rationale -- the presumption that his behavior on his blog mirrors his behavior when in contact with humans on the job.
Jack21222 said:His behavior off the clock shows his mindset and attitude towards a group of people it's his job to protect on the clock.
A KKK member might be a wonderful public defender, for example, but would you really trust him to defend a black person with as much effort as he would an Anglo-Saxon? Even if there is no evidence that the klansman did anything wrong on the clock, his off the clock behavior casts doubt on his ability to perform his job.
I'm making the same argument here. Unless I misunderstand what the attorney general's office does, he's supposed to represent the people of his state in court. Do we trust him to put in the appropriate effort to investigate a situation in which a gay person has a complaint?
Even if there's no indication he didn't do his job in the past, his actions outside of work cast into doubt his ability to always perform his job without bias in the future.
Proton Soup said:well, a few points. Shirvell is not working for a company or agency. if he were, he would have been gone already.
as far as opinion, my opinion of Shirvell is pretty low, both on a moral basis and what i see as outward signs of a lack of competence. he may also have some mental/emotional difficulties for all i know.
and again, my issue is not with whether or not Shirvell is a decent person or competent. my issue is that if and when he is dismissed, it should be done with clear cause.
Nismaratwork said:Civil Service rules allow for firing when there is "conduct unbecoming a public official".
D H said:That is pretty much a given.
I agree. That said, I think cause does exists, not so much in his written words (free speech and all that), but his harassment and stalking are a different story. Freedom of speech does not cover illegal acts such as harassment and stalking. Those are solid grounds for going after this guy.
Firing him without cause (i.e. over the written words written on his blog) will just feed the trolls. The trolls are already poised to go on a feeding frenzy in a month or so. Do we really need to toss even more food into their gaping mouths? That said, there is actionable stuff on his blog. Shrivell apparently has posted videos on the blog that clearly show him being a public nuisance at 1 AM outside the victim's house.
What I don't get is why this guy (a lawyer) consented to an interview with CNN just a few days before a personal protection order hearing against him. Surely some of that bizarre interview will be played during the hearing, and a PPO will provide grounds for dismissal.
It started as an issue of free speech. Post #1 came with the implication that it should be quashed -- that free speech should be denied in this case. Such assertions are no longer implicit.nismaratwork said:People trying to make this some grand issue of free speech,
Could you point me at it? I didn't notice anyone actually discussing that it was absurd that he might not engage in such behavior on the job -- it was more of an assertion that he does, or we must presume that he does.or that when he's on the job somehow this behaviour doesn't effect his work is absurd for reasons already discussed in this thread.
This paragraph and the next has me wondering where the line is between legitimate criticism and just picking on someone because you can get away with it.nismaratwork said:I honestly can't say if this man is enraged, closeted, mentally ill, or just desperately seeking attention for his "cause". ...
Post #1 was mine and it had nothing to do with free speech. I asked if he was "hate mongering", as in inciting hatred. The nut is stalking and harrassing a college student.Hurkyl said:It started as an issue of free speech. Post #1 came with the implication that it should be quashed -- that free speech should be denied in this case. Such assertions are no longer implicit.
I had assumed there was the implication that he should be shut down, or at least some sort of punitive action taken?Evo said:Post #1 was mine and it had nothing to do with free speech. I asked if he was "hate mongering", as in inciting hatred. The nut is stalking and harrassing a college student.
Hurkyl said:It started as an issue of free speech. Post #1 came with the implication that it should be quashed -- that free speech should be denied in this case. Such assertions are no longer implicit.
Could you point me at it? I didn't notice anyone actually discussing that it was absurd that he might not engage in such behavior on the job -- it was more of an assertion that he does, or we must presume that he does.
Of course, we don't have to make assumptions -- we could actually look at his job record.
This paragraph and the next has me wondering where the line is between legitimate criticism and just picking on someone because you can get away with it.
Hurkyl said:I had assumed there was the implication that he should be shut down, or at least some sort of punitive action taken?
The question of what speech is and is not covered by the first-amendment's protection of freedom of speech is, by definition, an issue of free speech.nismaratwork said:Assumptions... so the saying goes. I think you're making some assumptions about what the 1st amendment allows for as well... libel, slander, and stalking are not protected speech Hurkyl.
And I think it's rather novel! P&WA threads historically tended to converge to people clinging to the stupid arguments vs the people trying to explain they are stupid. It's neat to see one that has tended towards the more reasonable arguments.Much of this thread has been a winnowing down of arguments ... it's not as though there are no actions or information filtering out, just arguments being dissected.
Hurkyl said:And I think it's rather novel! P&WA threads historically tended to converge to people clinging to the stupid arguments vs the people trying to explain they are stupid. It's neat to see one that has tended towards the more reasonable arguments.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence.
I don't think that's true. For hate speech to lose its First Amendment protection it needs to rise to the level of inciting violence that is imminent. I haven't yet seen anything that goes quite that far.Evo said:His "speech", IMO, is hate mongering, which is not allowed under the First Ammendment.
In this instance, it's not just speech. It rises to the level of stalking and harassment, and that takes his actions from protected speech to criminal acts, IMO. The fact that he is an assistant AG makes it even worse.Gokul43201 said:I don't think that's true. For hate speech to lose its First Amendment protection it needs to rise to the level of inciting violence that is imminent. I haven't yet seen anything that goes quite that far.
Gokul43201 said:I don't think that's true. For hate speech to lose its First Amendment protection it needs to rise to the level of inciting violence that is imminent. I haven't yet seen anything that goes quite that far.
You are correct in the definition.Gokul43201 said:I don't think that's true. For hate speech to lose its First Amendment protection it needs to rise to the level of inciting violence that is imminent. I haven't yet seen anything that goes quite that far.
I'd say Shirvel's online posting would easily cross this boundary.What’s the First Amendment issue with legislation against cyberstalking?
It has to do with distinguishing between protected freedom of speech and speech that is not protected. Most of the new laws passed by states require that, for online communications to be considered “stalking,” they must constitute harassment of a person that places the person in reasonable fear for his or her safety. Courts have upheld stalking legislation that deals with threats because the First Amendment does not protect true threats. But some of the measures go beyond punishing true threats and proscribe “annoying” speech.
First, it's political, his boss, the Attorney General, is elected, he has to be careful of losing votes. Second, if they dismiss him and he wins an appeal, it could be really bad for the state. But it's more likely that Cox, the AG, is afraid of alienating the Christian right that elected him.Jack21222 said:I still don't understand where the first amendment protects your right to have a specific job. In the private sector, this guy would have been quickly fired. Do we hold government employees to a lower standard that the private sector?
Why should we tolerate behavior from an assistant attorney general that we wouldn't tolerate from a McDonalds cashier?
turbo-1 said:It rises to the level of stalking and harassment, and that takes his actions from protected speech to criminal acts, IMO.
nismaratwork said:The 1st amendment does NOT give you the right to commit slander or libel... in other words, you can't target an individual in this fashion.
I'm not saying that stalking, slander or harassment are protected. My response was limited only to hate mongering, which, as long as it falls short of incitement, is protected.Evo said:But crossing the line to "harassment of a person that places the person in reasonable fear for his or her safety" can trump free speech protection.
Evo said:His employment has nothing to do with his claim of First Amendment rights.
Free speech is Shirvel's excuse as his defense, but it doesn't hold water.Jack21222 said:I agree with you, but so much of this thread is focusing on the first amendment that I'm getting confused.
G037H3 said:I think he is still protected by the 1st Amendment, but he's sort of pushing it. As in, I would fire him if I were his boss, because he seems like a biased creep anyways.
You need to read the OP again then, and the post I was responding to.nismaratwork said:Gokul: Hate Mongering isn't the issue, and never was...
I appreciate the consensus that he should be fired (now), but that this wasn't obvious from the first page is genuinely disturbing, as all the facts that are available now were in place then!
TIme for a history lesson.Jack21222 said:I still don't understand where the first amendment protects your right to have a specific job. In the private sector, this guy would have been quickly fired. Do we hold government employees to a lower standard that the private sector?
G037H3 said:Modern society has no real social moderating principle other than popular culture and the full force of the law. The problem is that law has very little to do with morality at this point in time, and much more to do with powerful political and business interests.
I care very little for learning lots of laws, as the totality of federal law is more than a dozen million words, which no person can learn comprehensively. Slander and libel should be allowed in situations that have no real political or business implications, because an opinion regarding another should be capable of being expressed, even if it is disliked by others or by the target. It is not the fault of someone who makes a claim that everyone focuses on surface appearances and not the core argument behind statements.
Before you think that it is wise to rush to such a judgment, you should realize that you yourself cannot know if you will ever be accused of a similar breach of socially acceptable behaviour, regardless of whether or not it is true or not. So it is best to defer judgment.
D H said:TIme for a history lesson.
The extent to which civil servants can espouse political views varies quite a bit over the history of the country. Up until the late 1800s civil servants *had* to espouse political views -- and they had to espouse the "right" political views, namely the views of whoever was in power. Almost every government job was a political appointment. "To the victor go the spoils." Bribes helped land a job. Money and corruption percolated up, making people at the top very rich and very dirty indeed. Boss Tweed, for example, was eventually convicted of stealing over a billion dollars (in 2010 dollars).
That had to stop, and eventually it did. The assassination of President Garfield was what finally turn the tables. Our modern civil service, with GS grades and all that, started in the 1880s. Being the government, things went from one extreme to another. That wasn't good enough, so in the 1930s things became even more stringent with the Hatch Act.
Because civil servants are significantly restricted in what they can do with regard to politics, those things that civil servants can do (e.g., espouse political opinions on their own time) with regard to politics receive strong protection. As much as presidents/governors/mayors etc. of all ilk would like, they cannot fire people below political appointees for their political or religious views.
nismaratwork said:Re: bolded portion: that's absurd, especially given that Shirvell has not only failed to DENY these issues, but actually bragged about them on national television. Your opinion that slander and libel should be allowed is as baffling as it is irrelevant, but at least you're honest in not caring about anything but your own opinion informed by ignorance of the law. When it comes to that, if you are willfully ignorant of the law, then don't invoke the 1st amendment on anther's behalf when that is a LEGAL point.
