D H said:
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:
CNN said:
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...
CNN said:
...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:
CNN said:
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.
Hail brother nerd!