News State attorney launches bizarre Internet war on openly gay college student

Click For Summary
Assistant Attorney General Andrew Shirvell has launched a blog targeting Chris Armstrong, the openly gay student body president at the University of Michigan, using derogatory language and personal attacks. Shirvell has admitted to protesting outside Armstrong's home and posting defaced images of him online. The actions have raised questions about whether they constitute hate-mongering and have sparked significant public outrage, especially given Shirvell's position in the government. Critics argue that Shirvell's behavior reflects a lack of professionalism and maturity, suggesting he should be fired for his actions. The discussion highlights concerns over the limits of free speech for public officials and the implications of Shirvell's conduct on his role within the attorney general's office.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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:
 
  • #36
Hurkyl said:
Where did he express them as an agent of the judiciary?

Where does someone who posts their vacation pictures do so as an agent of their company? Why do you believe that he needs to be fired under the particular grounds that he abused his power?... how about he's just an obsessive and immature individual, and that's not who you want prosecuting cases?
 
  • #37
nismaratwork said:
Firing someone in the secure knowledge that they don't have a case isn't dishonest.
What does "knowledge that they don't have a case" have to do with honesty?


(P.S. you may have missed an addition to my previous post)
 
  • #38
Hurkyl said:
What does "knowledge that they don't have a case" have to do with honesty?

Hurkyl, you need to read these posts... I'm responding to Proton Soup who claims that knowing he would likely lose a suit to regain his job = dishonest tactics, which he claims I'm promoting thereby. I appreciate your fast responses, but seriously...
 
  • #39
Hurkyl said:
What does "knowledge that they don't have a case" have to do with honesty?


(P.S. you may have missed an addition to my previous post)

I did miss the addition... my answer is: yes, but it's not against the law, and this is the kind of case where you WOULD want someone fired. You're asking how he did this under certain circumstances as if that has some legal bearing. If he did this as an agent of the state he wouldn't just be fired, he'd be PROSECUTED... I'm not arguing for that, just his dismissal. Beyond that this is clearly a civil matter for the student.
 
  • #40
nismaratwork said:
Hurkyl, you need to read these posts... I'm responding to Proton Soup who claims that knowing he would likely lose a suit to regain his job = dishonest tactics, which he claims I'm promoting thereby. I appreciate your fast responses, but seriously...
It looked more like he was reacting to what appeared to be you rationalizing away your uneasiness about firing him by arguing that the government would likely be safe from being successfully sued.
 
  • #41
Hurkyl said:
It looked more like he was reacting to what appeared to be you rationalizing away your uneasiness about firing him by arguing that the government would likely be safe from being successfully sued.

In what post, and in what way have I appeared even remotely uneasy about his firing? In what way does his lacking a case equate to dishonest "tactics"
 
  • #42
As Hurkyl has now made essentially the same argument as Proton Soup, here:
I'm still waiting for a response from PS as to how firing is dishonest.
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.

Oh please, so everyone who thinks he should be fired is forwarding the use of dishonest tactics? That's beyond absurd, and your assertion that firing him for acting in the fashion that he has violates his rights is also absurd. He has the right to free speech, which means he can't be PROSECUTED for this, and his blog can't be taken down summarily... he doesn't have the right to be an AAG.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
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?

I think nismaratwork is wrong about it being legal to fire Shirvell unless at least some thread linking the blog to the AAG position could be established, but I understand his sympathies about the subject.

In fact, something about DH's post bugged me. The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect ugly, distasteful, politically charged speech with which almost everyone disagrees or hateful speech. It exists to protect legitimate, accurate speech which the government doesn't want people to know. It takes away the authority to decide what's legitimate speech and plain drivel since, given the authority, the government could just classify any speech that criticizes the government to be drivel and suppress it.

That doesn't mean a distinction doesn't exist. Pornography can be restricted since there's a consensus that that isn't meaningful speech or art. You can't libel or harrass someone citing your right to free speech (in fact, Armstrong is already pusuing that line against Shirvell and that case could provide the link necessary for the state to fire Shirvell).

We still error too much on the side of protecting free speech, but I think that's a good thing. Even so, we're really stretching to include what Shirvell is doing to be worth protecting and I can understand people being offended by him holding on to his job simply because he's more careful than others have been to make sure of keeping his personal comments separate from his job.

In other words, while I don't think Michigan can fire him just based on what's out there, I'm rooting for him to screw up.
 
  • #44
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.

Since when are hatred and bigotry considered political opinions?
 
  • #45
BobG said:
I think nismaratwork is wrong about it being legal to fire Shirvell unless at least some thread linking the blog to the AAG position could be established, but I understand his sympathies about the subject.

In fact, something about DH's post bugged me. The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect ugly, distasteful, politically charged speech with which almost everyone disagrees or hateful speech. It exists to protect legitimate, accurate speech which the government doesn't want people to know. It takes away the authority to decide what's legitimate speech and plain drivel since, given the authority, the government could just classify any speech that criticizes the government to be drivel and suppress it.

That doesn't mean a distinction doesn't exist. Pornography can be restricted since there's a consensus that that isn't meaningful speech or art. You can't libel or harrass someone citing your right to free speech (in fact, Armstrong is already pusuing that line against Shirvell and that case could provide the link necessary for the state to fire Shirvell).

We still error too much on the side of protecting free speech, but I think that's a good thing. Even so, we're really stretching to include what Shirvell is doing to be worth protecting and I can understand people being offended by him holding on to his job simply because he's more careful than others have been to make sure of keeping his personal comments separate from his job.

In other words, while I don't think Michigan can fire him just based on what's out there, I'm rooting for him to screw up.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100930/NEWS06/100930080/1008/Assistant-AG-with-antigay-blog-appeals-order-to-keep-off-campus

Armstrong fired back in the personal protection order filed two weeks ago. The order, posted on www.annarbor.com today, says since being elected to the student leadership post in the spring, Shirvell has attacked him verbally at campus events, called the office where Armstrong was doing a summer internship in D.C. and complained about him, followed Armstrong’s friends to events hoping to find Armstrong, and protested and took pictures outside Armstrong’s home. One of his friends felt threatened by a conversation with Shirvell after.


On more than one occasion, police were called when Shirvell protested at Armstrong’s home.


In the filing, Armstrong says Shirvell’s actions “have been incredibly distressing,” and “make me feel unsure about my own safety.”

I think that his behaviour raises serious questions about his mental fitness and ability to carry out his "day job". An AAG should not be making decisions which result in restraining orders and police intervention, when merely the Appearance of Impropriety is an issue in the legal profession.

From a purely practical standpoint, as cyber-bullying laws sweep the nation, it could put convictions in which Shirvell was involved at risk, if/when they're passed in Michigan. Certainly any gay individual who's been convicted with this AAG involved is going to be able to get appeals. His boss has cited Shirvell’s, “immaturity and lack of judgment,” which strike me as reasons to fire ANYONE in such a position where maturity and judgment are essential job requirements.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
Jack21222 said:
Since when are hatred and bigotry considered political opinions?

More importantly, Shirvell has made concrete claims about Armstrong turning people into homosexuals (citing a specific supposed case), orgies, lies and more... which are not opinions, but LIBEL.

That said, it seems to me that hatred and bigotry form the backbone of some political opinions, and if Armstrong didn't actively fabricate events and publish them, he'd be free to express his hate-speech. I think the key here is that he's free to be a bigot, but that comes with consequences, such as civil action, banning from his alma mater (done now) and possibly firing.

The first amendment doesn't guarantee what RECEPTION your speech will get, as much as some here seem to think it does or should.
 
  • #47
nismaratwork said:
That said, it seems to me that hatred and bigotry form the backbone of some political opinions, and if Armstrong didn't actively fabricate events and publish them, he'd be free to express his hate-speech.

As I said earlier in the thread, though, nobody is threatening him with arrest or a fine. The first amendment doesn't guarantee a right to a specific job. Unless he has an employment contract that says otherwise, he can get fired for free speech and there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

This has nothing to do with the issue of free speech. It's only a contract law issue.
 
  • #48
Jack21222 said:
As I said earlier in the thread, though, nobody is threatening him with arrest or a fine. The first amendment doesn't guarantee a right to a specific job. Unless he has an employment contract that says otherwise, he can get fired for free speech and there's nothing unconstitutional about that.

This has nothing to do with the issue of free speech. It's only a contract law issue.

I agree completely, and AFAIK AAGs have pretty lousy contracts. I stand by my view that he's being pressured to resign, which IS a less-than-honest tactic along the lines of what Proton Soup mentioned, although not one I've proposed.
 
  • #49
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.
 
  • #50
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.

You're correct that AAG in Michigan is an appointed position, and that the AG is elected. I would say that, even if this letter as you say exists, it would be unfortunate for the AG if he said that Shirvell had tendered his resignation and that the AG accepted it, only to have Shirvell say he did no such thing. Consider the vehemence of Shirvell's words, but also his actions... he may care more about continuing his crusade and possibly trying to parlay it into a different kind of career in or out of politics, than he does about about his position in the MAG office. If he's fired, he can and will find supporters beyond those he already has, but if he admits a mistake and resigns, that diminishes his marketability.
 
  • #51
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.

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.
 
  • #52
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.

Works for me on all levels, and well said.
 
  • #53
Addition: The Michigan AG stated that he COULD NOT (not would not) fire his AAG... that appears to be patently untrue. I think this has a lot to do with covering his elected a**, and little else.

edit: Civil Service rules allow for firing when there is "conduct unbecoming a public official". The more I read about this, and what's coming out on CNN now is making it clear that this has NOTHING to do with free speech. There is stalking behaviour, videotaping, calling Armstrong's boss to slander, and more. Cox saying that CAN'T fire this guy is absurd... and every former AG (including the current Michigan gov) is saying that this guy would be fired asap.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
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?

i've already answered that. you said that in theory he might be safe, but go ahead and fire him anyway.
 
  • #55
Proton Soup said:
i've already answered that. you said that in theory he might be safe, but go ahead and fire him anyway.

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.
 
  • #56
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.

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.
 
  • #57
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.

As I said, anyone can read the posts out there and realize that you're making a great deal of noise about nothing, confirmed by you dragging what appears to be more of your preconceptions and opinions from another thread. If you have nothing new to offer here, I'm not going to get into a circular argument with you anymore. I will say that you're doing Monique a disservice by saying that somehow I'm playing games with either of you, or comparing your situation in this thread to hers. She wants to discuss a broader topic than I was addressing in that other thread; you're just off the mark here... big difference.
 
  • #58
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.

I would be cautious of #1 however. My understanding is that his "protest" was directed at a private individual. The speech itself is fine; anyone is free to protest a lifestyle, idealogical choice, or even a theological one.

However, verbal attacks on an individual (regardless of the reason), as far as I know, are not protected.

EDIT: i.e. You may protest the use of euthanasia at an animal shelter, however, you cannot go to the shelter administrator's home and yell "murderer."
 
Last edited:
  • #59
Proton Soup said:
i've already answered that. you said that in theory he might be safe, but go ahead and fire him anyway.

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.
 
  • #60
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.

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.