State attorney launches bizarre Internet war on openly gay college student

[Jack21222]

Whether or not some people can put aside their personal opinions is irrelevant, and your last sentence explains why. The appearance of bigotry undermines public trust. Same way with conflict of interest situations. The mere appearance of impropriety can be just as bad as actual impropriety.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

To quote myself:

Civil Service rules allow for firing when there is "conduct unbecoming a public official".

He's already done this, with his blog, his stalking behaviour, his libel AND slander! The man has been banned from the U-M campus because of his behaviour, a judge did NOT dismiss a PPO claim against him, and this young man (Armstrong) has gone on record with the courts saying he feels threatened by him. What more do you want for clear cause... does he need to physically assault someone? Compare this to dismissals of other civil servants and compare your standards for cause... they are NOT even.

The issue here is that Cox has been vocal in the past about his anti-gay views, Shirvell is a political crony, and the AG doesn't want to fire him. PERIOD. People trying to make this some grand issue of free speech, 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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

See two bolded portions... you just answered your own question. I honestly can't say if this man is enraged, closeted, mentally ill, or just desperately seeking attention for his "cause". It seems to me that he would find it hard to believe that others wouldn't accept his viewpoint as valid, and that frankly he's obsessive and incapable of understanding how you, or I , or John Q. Public wouldn't agree with his "logic".

Who knows, maybe he's genuinely mentally ill and sees himself as a central crusader figure here... or more likely he's emotionally stunted and this is the way his feels assert themselves... like a bully. He could be completely sane and still lack the insight to understand that he's acting irrationally. Frankly, if it weren't homophobia, I think this man would have another pet issue to drive him, and form a backbone for his attention seeking behaviour.

 

[Hurkyl]

People trying to make this some grand issue of free speech,

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.

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.

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.

I honestly can't say if this man is enraged, closeted, mentally ill, or just desperately seeking attention for his "cause". ...

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

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.

I'm not saying that this person doesn't have a right to his personal opinions, but he crossed the line of what is acceptable among civilized and/or sane people a long time ago.

It's ok to dispapprove, it's ok to say you disapprove, it's not ok to physically stalk and harrass those you disapprove of.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

I had assumed there was the implication that he should be shut down, or at least some sort of punitive action taken?

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

How ironic @bolded portion, given the context here. I don't think that questioning the emotional maturity or sanity of a man who's actions match those of Shirvell is criticism... it's speculation as to his motives and thought processes and mental health. When someone goes on CNN and talks about a student council president as though he were part of a national political structure, dedicates a blog to libel, calls his former boss to slander him, stalks him at his home and elsewhere... I believe a detailed examination is warranted.

As for work: I believe the point that he could have put some small number of past cases in jeopardy has been raised, as well as the obvious need that he would now have to recuse himself from any case where a homosexual is involved. You also talked about direct interactions, but the fact is that as a member of the AG's office he's part of the face of justice in Michigan, and his conduct reflects poorly on that. Surely any gay man or woman has to wonder if their claims will be treated equally on either side with this man trying cases, and an AG who won't fire him. THAT is part of his job... he doesn't need to corner someone in the men's restroom and call them names for it to do so.

Much of this thread has been a winnowing down of arguments that Shirvell somehow didn't cross basic professional lines to the point where firing would be expected, from free speech, through contracts, and now finally to nearly unanimous agreement. I find that odd, as the PPO request was filed before this thread was even made... it's not as though there are no actions or information filtering out, just arguments being dissected.

 

[nismaratwork]

I had assumed there was the implication that he should be shut down, or at least some sort of punitive action taken?

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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.

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

Well, sometimes reality isn't something that can be massaged to fit preconceptions, and even the most stubborn have to either relent, or retreat. I give credit in this case to objective reality and the magnitude of Shirvell's misconduct, not some revolution in this section of PF.

I would add that in many cases there is no question about what is free speech, it is settled law. If we were discussing a new SCOTUS ruling then it would be as you say, but we're not, and it's not.

 

[Evo]

As far as 'free speech' goes, it does have limits.

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.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

His "speech", IMO, is hate mongering, which is not allowed under the First Ammendment.

 

[Gokul43201]

His "speech", IMO, is hate mongering, which is not allowed under the First Ammendment.

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.

 

[turbo]

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.

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

This is a common misconception that applies here. If Shirvell said, "homosexuals are satanic nazis", THAT is protected speech. Saying, "Armstrong is a satanic nazi" is NOT. 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.

 

[Evo]

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.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=internet_hate_speech

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.

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.

I'd say Shirvel's online posting would easily cross this boundary.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/faqs.aspx?faq=all

 

[Jack21222]

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?

 

[Evo]

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?

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.

His employment has nothing to do with his claim of First Ammendment rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_attorney_general

 

[Gokul43201]

It rises to the level of stalking and harassment, and that takes his actions from protected speech to criminal acts, IMO.

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.

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.

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.

I don't disagree that Shirwell has gone beyond just that.

 

[Jack21222]

His employment has nothing to do with his claim of First Amendment rights.

I agree with you, but so much of this thread is focusing on the first amendment that I'm getting confused.

 

[Evo]

I agree with you, but so much of this thread is focusing on the first amendment that I'm getting confused.

Free speech is Shirvel's excuse as his defense, but it doesn't hold water.

 

[G037H3]

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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 can think whatever you want, but this is settled law for well over a century and more. You can't target individuals with slander and libel and be protected under the 1st ammendment. I realize that this is Physics Forums, and not Law Review... but still... enough. We don't need a constant reiteration of Shirvell's defense when it's legally unsound on its face.

Gokul: Hate Mongering isn't the issue, and never was; it is the specific harassment of one man that is. Nothing more or less has been alleged, so why introduce a broad and nebulous term that has no bearing on this discussion? You don't NEED to reach the point of incitement when it is speech against a SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL, as long as that speech is untrue; It's that simple. Incitement is an issue of groups, and attempts to have them targeted by proxy... by definition when this becomes an individual issue involving blatant lies about specific conduct it's libel, slander, harassment.

The only reason that the 1st amendment has even been raised here, beyond reference to the AAG and AG's defense is a lack of understanding of federal law here. I'm not just talking to you Gokul, but obviously G037H3 is an example of someone who can sail through 5 pages of this blissfully unencumbered by facts. I suggest that this thread be book-ended with links to the relevant case-law and rulings if this how it's going to proceed.

If I become any more clear you'll see daylight through me, and if I'm any more direct it would be insulting. 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!

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul: Hate Mongering isn't the issue, and never was...

You need to read the OP again then, and the post I was responding to.

 

[G037H3]

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.

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!

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

Given Shirvell's actions (putting aside the blog) he still meets the criteria for dismissal, but this is probably the best post I've read in pages. In reality of course, this is why firing is rare, but resignations are incredibly common. Cox could have fired Shirvell without violating the law, but your post certainly goes a long way towards explaining why civil service jobs are often seen as bulletproof.

 

[G037H3]

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.

Under certain circumstances it should be considered to be a permissible act, wherein the accuser's reputation is on the line. Making accusations without any consequences is not at all what I am advocating. Also, I am fully able to speak of the actions of one person to another without thinking of it primarily in a legal context. My mention of the 1st Amendment was not an analysis of the 1st Amendment itself, but a statement on what should be permissible in public discourse. Morality and rationality are outside the bounds of law.

 

[Jack21222]

On one hand, I don't think outright bigotry is an actual political stance. On the other, it's not the government's job to determine what a valid political stance is.

I still argue that his "political stance" makes him unable to perform his job properly and fairly.

It's like religion... government doesn't get to decide which religions are real or fake, but if you rape 13 year oldsin the name of your religion and claim freedom of religion protection, you're out of luck.

Expressing (and acting out on) your hatred for a group of people may or may not be a legitimate political stance, that isn't for the government to decide. Be put in a position where you're investigating a claim against, or on behalf of, that group, and I see an obvious conflict of interest. In this case, his particular political view makes it impossible to do his job properly.

Having this guy in a position of power over homosexuals is like having a member of NAMBLA as a boy scout leader.

 

[nismaratwork]

Under certain circumstances it should be considered to be a permissible act, wherein the accuser's reputation is on the line. Making accusations without any consequences is not at all what I am advocating. Also, I am fully able to speak of the actions of one person to another without thinking of it primarily in a legal context. My mention of the 1st Amendment was not an analysis of the 1st Amendment itself, but a statement on what should be permissible in public discourse. Morality and rationality are outside the bounds of law.

Your belief that something should be is completely irrelevant to what IS, and I get the sense that you don't grasp the meanings of slander and libel. Either way, you're just pushing your own view of how things should be, and the rest of us are discussing an actual event in the real world.

Jack21222: I agree with your first two sentences, and that leads to your third... I have no idea what his politics are, only his particular irrational hatreds, fabrications, and illegal behaviors. Everything else you say, I also agree with, and your last sentence made me lol... it's a damned good analogy. Can you imagine being gay in Michigan right now, knowing that if something happens to you and the state must act on your behalf, Shirvell could be the one to do so? Yikes!

 

[D H]

I still argue that his "political stance" makes him unable to perform his job properly and fairly.

And you know this because? Unless you are privy to privileged information such as performance evaluations, I suggest that you do not know whether Shirvell is unable to perform his job fairly.

Prosecutors have to uphold laws with which they personally disagree, defense lawyers have to raise a viable defense for absolute scumbags. The ability to separate ones personal beliefs from ones work is an essential trait for lawyers. They are hammered home on why this is essential and how to do so from day one in law school.

(In response to a post by G037H3) I get the sense that you don't grasp the meanings of slander and libel.

I get the sense that you don't grasp the meaning of slander and libel. Libel is a very tough claim in the US, even in cases where the victim is a private citizen. Proving libel is even tougher when the victim is a public figure. Armstrong is a public figure. Truth, opinion, and unfalsifiable statements are viable defenses against claims of libel. Statements directed at a public figure have to go through a long litany of tests to qualify as slander or libel.

What, precisely, has Shirvell said that is slanderous or written that is libelous? Certainly not calling Armstrong so-called gay. Armstrong is admittedly gay. So-called is a noise word, and certainly is not a fighting word. Claiming that Armstrong is pushing a radical agenda? That is opinion and is very well protected. Calling him satan's representative? That is nasty and stupid, but libel? Armstrong would not only have to prove that that statement is false, he would also have to prove that Shirvell knew it to be false. Photoshopping a Nazi flag on a photo of Armstrong? Once again, very nasty, but what does that even mean?If you want to go after Shirvell, slander and libel is not the way to go. Harassment and stalking are quite a different thing.Let me be very clear: I do not like what Shirvell has done. I am not defending Shirvell's written words because I agree with those words. I do not. I am defending his written words because I think that governmental decrees over what constitutes illegal or improper speech has to be kept to a very bare minimum. Ensuring that we in general retain our right to free speech means that some really ugly stuff also has to be allowed.

 

[Hurkyl]

It's like religion... government doesn't get to decide which religions are real or fake,

Yes it does. It would be impossible for the government to protect your freedom of religion if it couldn't decide if your religion is actually a religion.

While in principle, I suppose the government could assume absolutely every action a person might take is central to their religion, I doubt that's the standard actually used in real life.

 

[Proton Soup]

This is a common misconception that applies here. If Shirvell said, "homosexuals are satanic nazis", THAT is protected speech. Saying, "Armstrong is a satanic nazi" is NOT. 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.

slander and libel are not protected, but it is a civil matter. it would be up to Armstrong to file a defamation suit against Shirvell.

 

[nismaratwork]

And you know this because? Unless you are privy to privileged information such as performance evaluations, I suggest that you do not know whether Shirvell is unable to perform his job fairly.

Prosecutors have to uphold laws with which they personally disagree, defense lawyers have to raise a viable defense for absolute scumbags. The ability to separate ones personal beliefs from ones work is an essential trait for lawyers. They are hammered home on why this is essential and how to do so from day one in law school.



I get the sense that you don't grasp the meaning of slander and libel. Libel is a very tough claim in the US, even in cases where the victim is a private citizen. Proving libel is even tougher when the victim is a public figure. Armstrong is a public figure. Truth, opinion, and unfalsifiable statements are viable defenses against claims of libel. Statements directed at a public figure have to go through a long litany of tests to qualify as slander or libel.

What, precisely, has Shirvell said that is slanderous or written that is libelous? Certainly not calling Armstrong so-called gay. Armstrong is admittedly gay. So-called is a noise word, and certainly is not a fighting word. Claiming that Armstrong is pushing a radical agenda? That is opinion and is very well protected. Calling him satan's representative? That is nasty and stupid, but libel? Armstrong would not only have to prove that that statement is false, he would also have to prove that Shirvell knew it to be false. Photoshopping a Nazi flag on a photo of Armstrong? Once again, very nasty, but what does that even mean?


If you want to go after Shirvell, slander and libel is not the way to go. Harassment and stalking are quite a different thing.


Let me be very clear: I do not like what Shirvell has done. I am not defending Shirvell's written words because I agree with those words. I do not. I am defending his written words because I think that governmental decrees over what constitutes illegal or improper speech has to be kept to a very bare minimum. Ensuring that we in general retain our right to free speech means that some really ugly stuff also has to be allowed.

Good question, and you're right that it's tough to prove libel or slander when directed against a public figure, but Armstrong is a private citizen in a student government; the standard (while still high) is as low as it gets. Student government doesn't qualify one as a public servant in the eyes of the law... you're wrong on a very basic level. That said, Libel is still tough, so let me continue without simply dismissing you out of hand.

Libel, being the written version of Slander:

Blog posts by Andrew Shirvell accuse Chris Armstrong of “engaging in ‘flagrant sexual promiscuity" with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing ‘a previously conservative [male] student’ ... hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009 and trying to recruit incoming first-year students ‘to join the homosexual ‘lifestyle."

Now, the "recruiting" bit is absurd, but it can be argued that doing so isn't wrong, so claims that such is occurring isn't libel. It's clearly absurd on many levels, but I'll stick tot he legality as per your request.

The italicized portions amount to libel in the absence of proof (which he has not yet presented), and especially the claim of holding an orgy is libelous.

The welcome page to his blog states: "Welcome to 'Chris Armstrong Watch,'" Shirvell wrote in his inaugural blog post. "This is a site for concerned University of Michigan alumni, students, and others who oppose the recent election of Chris Armstrong -- a RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVIST, RACIST, ELITIST, & LIAR -- as the new head of student government."

With the bolded portions being the ones likely to be considered libel.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-28/us/michigan.justice.blog_1_gay-student-student-government-minority-students?_s=PM:US

The above goes into more detail...

...sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, "morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda;"

This is the kind of statement that could even be considered incitement, with the implication that this student is not only engaging in sex with "formerly straight" students, but somehow changing their politics. Given the statistics on gay bashing violence and the espoused reasons for a given event (often perceived seduction or related issues), this is dangerous.

Now, this... is slander:

Shirvell acknowledged protesting outside of Armstrong's house and calling him "Satan's representative on the student assembly."

Of course it's also harassment, for which the police apparently had to be called on more than one occasion. This is just a slice of 6 months of blogging, verbal harassment, stalking behaviour and (failed) attempts to videotape Armstrong in his dwelling to confirm his orgy theory.

We still have to come back to the fact that Armstrong is a college student and NOT a public figure, at least, not in the legal sense. In fact, by making his sexual orientation in context with the libel and slander aforementioned so public it's arguable that Shirvell has placed Armstrong's life in jeopardy from extreme elements. Rebuttal?

@Hurkyl: You're right, and that's a very thorny subject in areas such as the rights of Jehovah's witnesses, or ongoing attempts of Scientology to gain tax exempt status. It usually comes down to judicial rulings based on evidence, and compared to existing standards. There are cases (as in, boxes) full of jurisprudence regarding this issue, and it's incredibly complex, but ultimately as you say, to protect religions they must be identified as religions. It's also worth pointing out that if a crime is central to a religion, it's not allowed either. Even native americans cannot consume psychoactive cacti off the sovereign territory of their reservations; exceptions (such as nonviolence vs. military service) cannot involve a criminal act.