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.
  • #61
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.

Eh, you know what, Nismar, I retract that. I've reread this thread from page 2 until here and you're right... your choice of language is sometimes "inflammatory" but you're not being vague and I can't find an instance in which you've intentionally used a set of words to hide or detract meaning. I retract my negative criticism.

Proton, I suggest you read again if you're still unsure.

EDIT: typo, add line

EDIT 2: There's a very stark line between being vague (or contradictory) and trying to inject nuance into your point. I've certainly struggled to keep the difference obvious.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.

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.
 
  • #64
  • #65
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.
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.
 
  • #66
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 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.
 
  • #67
The details aren't entirely clear but
http://www.michigandaily.com/node/56128
Shirvell has been pressured/forced to take a leave of absence (it was originally reported he was suspended, so maybe he just chose to swallow the gun on his own, or maybe this is actually voluntary), and is probably going to be fired at some point, unless this is a "hope everything blows over" strategy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Proton Soup said:
he may also have some mental/emotional difficulties for all i know.
That is pretty much a given.

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.
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.
 
  • #69
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.

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.

Edit: It occurs to me that there are parallels between this and "conflict of interests" situations. Chances are, for example, that a judge will not be biased in a case just because a brother-in-law has some stock in a company, but the judge will often recuse himself to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
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.

I'm all for firing him, but I'm not sure I buy that. There must exist SOME people who can put aside their personal beliefs when doing their job, and if there are some, he may be one of them. (Personally I don't think he is, but you never know)
Just as I hope that people appointed to judge (SC/SSC) positions would, while being against, say, the use contraception, or personal consumption of alcohol,tobacco, fatty foods, etc; would recognize that their personal opinion doesn't NEED to be forced on others, and to actually fight for everyone's right to that freedom.

I'd be all for firing him solely for the appearance of his bigotry while in a position where he should appear reasonable and open-minded; thus lessening the trust the public has in their officials to represent their interests properly.
 
  • #71
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.
 
  • #72
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.

To quote myself:
Nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #73
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.

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.
 
  • #74
nismaratwork said:
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.


nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #75
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.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
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.
I had assumed there was the implication that he should be shut down, or at least some sort of punitive action taken?
 
  • #77
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.

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.
 
  • #78
Hurkyl said:
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.
 
  • #79
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.
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.
 
  • #80
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.
 
  • #81
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.

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.
 
  • #82
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.
 
  • #83
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #84
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.
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.
 
  • #85
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.

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.
 
  • #86
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.

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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
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?
 
  • #88
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?
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
 
  • #89
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.

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.
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.
 
  • #90
Evo said:
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.