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

[DanP]

Please read the thread. Nobody has argued otherwise. Nobody said what he did should be illegal. Your post is a complete non sequitur.

SO what ? I never pretended anyone did. I just stated what I think . What I said bothers you ? Ignore it , if it does

 

[D H]

I don't think that hating someone or something is illegal. Humans should have the right to love or hate whatever they want, regardless of the so called "morality", within established laws.

Please read the thread. Nobody has argued otherwise. Nobody said what he did should be illegal. Your post is a complete non sequitur.

DanP's post was spot on, and you are contradicting yourself. You specifically said that what he did should be illegal right here:

If permissible by his contract, he should be fired. If not possible, laws need to change.

 

[Hepth]

That's not the same thing at all DH. Being able to be fired for something does not necessarily implicate illegality. He's saying the laws should be changed to be more inclusive of legal behavior that is not allowed for employment.

Its legal for me to get drunk, but I cannot while at work. Nothing illegal with it, but I can and should be fired for it. He's making the case that this is similar, that being drunk is enough to be fired without having to go through the process of disproving the claim "My drinking doesn't affect my research..." Which I think is fine.

 

[D H]

Look, we're going around in circles right now. We don't NEED to provide any specific examples of where he didn't treat somebody fairly on the job.

Since that is exactly the claim you are making, yes you do.

Most of you who are railing against this guy are concerned with how he treats people with a alternative gender preference. Do you even know if he has to interact with such people in performing his job? Do you know that dealing with such people is in his job description? If you don't even know what his job is, and how he is performing it, then you guys are no better than him. He is a moron on a stupid witch hunt. So are many of you in this thread.

Chirvell has said and written some extremely inappropriate things. Fine. Is that a firing offense? Is a civil servant who sides with the Democratics in a heavily Republican district exemplary of inappropriate thinking? The Republicans in Rockland County, N. Y. thought so, and fired the guy. Fortunately the Supreme Court thought otherwise.

Chirvell has also done some extremely inappropriate things in addition to his words. Asking whether that a firing offense is a very different question. You all don't care about that; you just want to have an old style lynchin' party over what he said and wrote.

In the same way, we don't need to prove a judge was influenced because he owns stock in a company. Or a congressman was influenced because his wife owns a company he voted on legislation about.

In all of these cases, the mere appearance of impropriety is enough to taint the whole process.

Yep. Let's lynch them all. To heck with due process. Get a rope.

Instead of a rope, you all could read the case law on how strongly the Supreme Court protects the first and fourteenth amendments with regard to public employees. Instead of calling him the assistant AG, you could find out how many assistant AGs the state of Michigan has (277 by my count!). You could find out what the rules are on terminating employees.

You apparently have some more detailed knowledge of Michigan's employment laws than I do,

I'm in Texas. There is this wonderful tool that transcends state and national boundaries nowadays.

 

[DanP]

Its legal for me to get drunk, but I cannot while at work. Nothing illegal with it, but I can and should be fired for it. He's making the case that this is similar, that being drunk is enough to be fired without having to go through the process of disproving the claim "My drinking doesn't affect my research..." Which I think is fine.

Ok, than let's be absurd and fire all ppl who do not believe in god. If you don't believe in god, or you hate gay ppl, you are fired. Sounds good to you ? Or what about, let's fire all ppl who think that ppl who hate gay ppl should be fired.

Lets not **** ourselves. If you don't accept that a person hates gay ppl, redheads or whatever else, and call for them to be fired, you are just bigoted IMO.

 

[turbo]

How many more ignorant posts until lock?

 

[Hepth]

Ok, than let's be absurd and fire all ppl who do not believe in god. If you don't believe in god, or you hate gay ppl, you are fired. Sounds good to you ? Or what about, let's fire all ppl who think that ppl who hate gay ppl should be fired.

Lets not **** ourselves. If you don't accept that a person hates gay ppl, redheads or whatever else, and call for them to be fired, you are just bigoted IMO.

I'm not sure I follow, why do we have to take it to the limit and be so irrational about it?

This instance seems to be more than a personal opinion. Though I agree that there is a large gray area of when does a personal opinion begin to become a problem in a government job.

Can a judge admit he is sexist and keep his position so long as he agrees to not try cases where the defendant is a woman? (not sure, but I doubt it)

The real question is whether or not the appearance of impartiality is a requirement for this specific government position, as opposed to absolute impartiality, and I'd say it probably varies from state to state.

 

[nismaratwork]

All you guys have cites is your utter dislike for the guy. You have cited no laws, no regulations, just raw emotions and opinions.

The state of Michigan has some rather strict rules regarding terminations in general. That it is a government rather than a corporation makes these rules very strict indeed.

That's simply untrue. The "conduct unbecoming a public servant" IS Michigan law. Behavior that his own boss calls "immature" and "bullying" is clearly fulfilling that standard.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think that hating someone or something is illegal. Humans should have the right to love or hate whatever they want, regardless of the so called "morality", within established laws.

Hating someone isn't illegal, this is a straw-man.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not sure I follow, why do we have to take it to the limit and be so irrational about it?

This instance seems to be more than a personal opinion. Though I agree that there is a large gray area of when does a personal opinion begin to become a problem in a government job.

Can a judge admit he is sexist and keep his position so long as he agrees to not try cases where the defendant is a woman? (not sure, but I doubt it)

The real question is whether or not the appearance of impartiality is a requirement for this specific government position, as opposed to absolute impartiality, and I'd say it probably varies from state to state.

...And in the case of Michigan it does...

 

[Jack21222]

DanP's post was spot on, and you are contradicting yourself. You specifically said that what he did should be illegal right here:

There is a difference between speech being illegal and speech being a terminable offense. I'm very sorry if you can't make that distinction, but many of us in the thread can.

And when I'm talking about the law being changed, I'm referring to the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected trait while gender is. You're equating protecting the civil rights of a persecuted minority with forming a lynch mob and skipping due process.

I really don't see where you get the connection.

 

[D H]

There is a difference between speech being illegal and speech being a terminable offense. I'm very sorry if you can't make that distinction, but many of us in the thread can.

Yeah, I'm sorry too: For the fate of our country.

Imagine that the tables are turned, that the upcoming November election is just the tip of a very chilling iceberg. Imagine that Palin (or someone worse) becomes President in 2012 and her coattails sweep people into Congress who will make Reagan look like a flaming liberal. The Constitution will hopefully protect us from at least some of what they try to foist on us. Those are the same protections that let people such as Chirvell run their mouths.

I have cited history and Supreme Court decisions. You guys have cited raw emotion and a clause "conduct unbecoming" without seeing what that clause means, or if it is even enforceable^1[/color].

I have even given you an out: Don't go after his speech. Go after his behavior. Harassment, stalking, being a public nuisance are not protected behaviors. His blog apparently is chock full of evidence that he did just that. But no, you want to go after his speech itself. I find that despicable.

And when I'm talking about the law being changed, I'm referring to the fact that sexual orientation is not a protected trait while gender is. You're equating protecting the civil rights of a persecuted minority with forming a lynch mob and skipping due process.

No, I'm equating going after a guy without due process as being evidence of lynch mob behavior. You want him fired *now*.

Dismissals from government employment can take a long time. Look at it this way: Remember Lisa Nowak? She who drove from Texas to Florida to perhaps kidnap and murder a rival lover? She was and still is a military officer. The term "conduct unbecoming" originated with the military. Even though she pled guilty to a felony, the Navy has yet to get rid of her for conduct unbecoming an officer. (Apparently it is in the works.---------------------------------

^1[/color]There are plenty of very bad but fortunately unenforceable laws on the books. When some law is found unconstitutional the law still remains on the books; the law just cannot be used anymore. Only the legislature can remove a law from the books.)

 

[mugaliens]

Don't the actions of Shirvell, the assistant state attorney general for Michigan amount to hate mongering?

Yep. It's high time anyone with half a hutzpah and the authority to do so (the Governor of Michigan comes to mind) direct him to turn in his resignation. If he refuses, press charges for hate crimes.

 

[G037H3]

If he refuses, press charges for hate crimes.

Thought crime is not crime.

To criminalize opinion is to admit fear of being wrong. If you truly believe what you espouse, then there is no reason to try to force others to all agree with you.

To attempt to do so is foolish, manipulative, and, notably, a sin of arrogance.

 

[DanP]

Can a judge admit he is sexist and keep his position so long as he agrees to not try cases where the defendant is a woman? (not sure, but I doubt it)

The real question is whether or not the appearance of impartiality is a requirement for this specific government position, as opposed to absolute impartiality, and I'd say it probably varies from state to state.

What difference does it make if he admits. He can be sexist, keep his mouth shut and be subtly biased in all lawsuits. The problem is not admission , but the mere existence.

Second, all humans are biased one way or another. You will not find absolute impartiality, it's utopian to think it exist, and it's idiotic for the state to require a "appearance" of impartiality.

 

[DanP]

. If he refuses, press charges for hate crimes.

What hate crimes ? Since when it is illegal to *hate* ? Its not a crime to hate , as its not a crime to love. Sorry. Let's not be self righteous. Everyone hates something or someone. This guy hates gay ppl. So what. Others hate him and want him fired. See the irony ?

 

[G037H3]

What hate crimes ? Since when it is illegal to *hate* ? Its not a crime to hate , as its not a crime to love. Sorry. Let's not be self righteous. Everyone hates something or someone. This guy hates gay ppl. So what. Others hate him and want him fired. See the irony ?

It's a trend in Europe to charge people for hate crimes for stating the truth, even if what they're stating is information released by the government...

it has recently become more of a leftist political idea in the US, as there are many 'progressives' who dislike the attitudes that some Americans have about the changes that are happening in the US, and feel that these people must be 'corrected'

 

[Jack21222]

Yeah, I'm sorry too: For the fate of our country.

Imagine that the tables are turned, that the upcoming November election is just the tip of a very chilling iceberg. Imagine that Palin (or someone worse) becomes President in 2012 and her coattails sweep people into Congress who will make Reagan look like a flaming liberal. The Constitution will hopefully protect us from at least some of what they try to foist on us. Those are the same protections that let people such as Chirvell run their mouths.

This is a non sequitur. How does one person not being fit for a particular government position equate to free speech laws? The two have nothing to do with one another.

I have even given you an out: Don't go after his speech. Go after his behavior. Harassment, stalking, being a public nuisance are not protected behaviors. His blog apparently is chock full of evidence that he did just that. But no, you want to go after his speech itself. I find that despicable.

Once again, I'm not arguing his speech should be illegal, I'm arguing that he doesn't have a right to be employed in a position of power over people he hates. If he was a government ditch-digger or the guy who holds the rotating stop/slow sign, I'd say "no problem." But he works for the AG's office. You're right that I don't know exactly what an AAG does, but I know what the AG's office does. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, and an AAG's only job is sorting file cabinets or something else mundane, then fine, I don't care if he keeps his job. But if it's anything like I suspect (investigating claims, for example), there's a potential for abuse.

No, I'm equating going after a guy without due process as being evidence of lynch mob behavior. You want him fired *now*.

How is it without due process? I said if permissible by his contract, fire him now. There is no due process in losing a job. People get fired all the time. Even from the government.

Then, I said if not permissible by his contract, then there is something wrong with the law. There is some weird loophole where race and gender is protected but sexual orientation is not. That loophole should be closed. How is THAT not due process?

Dismissals from government employment can take a long time. Look at it this way: Remember Lisa Nowak? She who drove from Texas to Florida to perhaps kidnap and murder a rival lover? She was and still is a military officer. The term "conduct unbecoming" originated with the military. Even though she pled guilty to a felony, the Navy has yet to get rid of her for conduct unbecoming an officer. (Apparently it is in the works.

Completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please try to stay on topic. If you'd like to start a thread about that case, I'd be happy to share my thoughts about how she should have been fired by now.

 

[D H]

This is a non sequitur. How does one person not being fit for a particular government position equate to free speech laws?

And you know he is not fit for his job because?

The state of Michigan has, by my count, 277 assistant attorney generals. Do you even know what his job is? Do you know what his performance has been?

The two have nothing to do with one another.

That is your opinion. The Supreme Court begs to disagree with you.

Once again, I'm not arguing his speech should be illegal, I'm arguing that he doesn't have a right to be employed in a position of power over people he hates.

How do you even know that he is in a position of power over people he hates? Nobody has posted his specific roles as an AAG. You do not know he has any such responsibilities.

But if it's anything like I suspect (investigating claims, for example), there's a potential for abuse.

For the most part, AAGs deal with appeals by people the state wants to keep in jail. Investigating complaints is for the most part a local affair. The state doesn't get involved until thing get hairy at the local level.

There is no due process in losing a job.

Your opinion again; the state of Michigan begs to disagree.

Completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please try to stay on topic. If you'd like to start a thread about that case, I'd be happy to share my thoughts about how she should have been fired by now.

Your opinion again, and in this case I beg to differ. I raised Lisa Nowak because she is a prototypical example of how hard it is for governmental agencies to terminate employees. Because it is so hard for government agencies to terminate troublesome or worthless employees, agencies will often give such employees a "promotion" to an office with zero budget, zero personnel, negligible responsibilities.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, I'm sorry too: For the fate of our country.

Imagine that the tables are turned, that the upcoming November election is just the tip of a very chilling iceberg. Imagine that Palin (or someone worse) becomes President in 2012 and her coattails sweep people into Congress who will make Reagan look like a flaming liberal. The Constitution will hopefully protect us from at least some of what they try to foist on us. Those are the same protections that let people such as Chirvell run their mouths.

I have cited history and Supreme Court decisions. You guys have cited raw emotion and a clause "conduct unbecoming" without seeing what that clause means, or if it is even enforceable^1[/color].

I have even given you an out: Don't go after his speech. Go after his behavior. Harassment, stalking, being a public nuisance are not protected behaviors. His blog apparently is chock full of evidence that he did just that. But no, you want to go after his speech itself. I find that despicable.


No, I'm equating going after a guy without due process as being evidence of lynch mob behavior. You want him fired *now*.

Dismissals from government employment can take a long time. Look at it this way: Remember Lisa Nowak? She who drove from Texas to Florida to perhaps kidnap and murder a rival lover? She was and still is a military officer. The term "conduct unbecoming" originated with the military. Even though she pled guilty to a felony, the Navy has yet to get rid of her for conduct unbecoming an officer. (Apparently it is in the works.


---------------------------------

^1[/color]There are plenty of very bad but fortunately unenforceable laws on the books. When some law is found unconstitutional the law still remains on the books; the law just cannot be used anymore. Only the legislature can remove a law from the books.)

D H, in the time it took you to write this thread, you could have researched Michigan law and realized that this is enforceable, current, and relevant. I'm out of this, since arguing with an emotional staff member "for the fate of out country" (oh boy) seems like a poor notion, but being loud is not the same as being right...

 

[D H]

I have researched Michigan law. Have you? All you are doing is parroting the words of others.

The phrase "conduct unbecoming a state employee" (http://www.michigan.gov/mdcs/0,1607,7-147-6877_8155-72500--,00.html and http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DHS-Emp-Handbook-Pub-87_146063_7.pdf) could not possibly stand muster on appeal if the meaning of that term wasn't well specified. What constitutes "conduct unbecoming" is of course well-specified, but not on a site that pertains to all employees. The code of conduct for law officers will be a bit different from that for court employees, for example. Here is the code of conduct for court employees: http://courts.michigan.gov/mji/resources/ModelCodeOfConduct.pdf .Note that the ACLU also backs Shirvell's right to speak his mind (or blog his mind) while off-duty. Funny how the ACLU keeps taking up positions that lose the backing of their staunchest supporters. (That's because unlike those pretenders, the ACLU truly does believe in free speech.) From http://www.annarbor.com/news/univer...state-attorney-general-face-off-in-court-mon/

Kary Moss, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Shirvell’s free speech rights deserve to be protected — no matter the contents of his message.
“As offensive and as despicable as Mr. Shirvell’s comments are, they are protected expression under the First Amendment when they are not used as a direct threat,” she said. “Without making specific threats against others, this is just another example of speech that society must tolerate, even though it is profoundly disturbing and stirs many to anger.”​

 

[Jack21222]

D H:

I think you're confusing "is" and "ought" in this thread. They are two completely different things. Quoting SCOTUS rulings is an "is" argument. I'm talking about "oughts."

 

[D H]

What "oughta be" is a very dangerous road to go down, Jack.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What "oughta be" is a very dangerous road to go down, Jack.

What? Are you recommending we never change anything because we believe it should be different?

 

[Al68]

Note that the ACLU also backs Shirvell's right to speak his mind (or blog his mind) while off-duty. Funny how the ACLU keeps taking up positions that lose the backing of their staunchest supporters. (That's because unlike those pretenders, the ACLU truly does believe in free speech.)

It seems you have missed the point of those of us that disagree with you. It's not the right to free speech we disagree with. I fully support his right to free speech, and oppose any restrictions on it.

But a job is a mutual agreement between two parties, not just one. He has a right to free speech, not a right to force another party to associate with (employ) him, or do business with him.

If I choose to sever my association with my plumber because I don't like something he said, it's not a violation of his free speech rights. It might be a breech of contract if there is one, which may require a monetary payment. It might even violate some state law.

But a claim that I violated my plumber's free speech rights by choosing not to associate with him any longer is just fallacious logic.

Another example of fallacious logic is to think that the fact that someone else agrees with you is evidence that you're right. Even if that someone else is supposedly important.

 

[D H]

It seems you have missed the point of those of us that disagree with you. It's not the right to free speech we disagree with. I fully support his right to free speech, and oppose any restrictions on it.

It is precisely those rights that you are disagreeing with. I've tried giving history lessons, citing Supreme Court decisions, and the Michigan code of conduct, all to no avail.

I've tried giving you an out, that freedom of speech does have limits. Harassment and stalking are not protected speech. Fighting words are not protected speech. You don't care about those limits. You continue to go after his words alone. Those words, as ugly as they are, are protected. He cannot lose his job over them.

If I choose to sever my association with my plumber because I don't like something he said, it's not a violation of his free speech rights. It might be a breech of contract if there is one, which may require a monetary payment. It might even violate some state law.

But a claim that I violated my plumber's free speech rights by choosing not to associate with him any longer is just fallacious logic.

The fallacious logic here is yours. I provided some Supreme Court rulings a while back. Try reading them. The Supreme Court has deemed multiple times that firing a government employee solely because of speech/written words is an illegal violation of that employee's freedom of speech. It is settled law.

 

[Al68]

It is precisely those rights that you are disagreeing with.

No, I have not. There are two different rights you are claiming he can exercise simultaneously. One is free speech. It's the other one I am disagreeing with: a right to employment.

I've tried giving you an out, that freedom of speech does have limits. Harassment and stalking are not protected speech. Fighting words are not protected speech. You don't care about those limits.

Yes, I care, but that's a different aspect of the issue altogether. My position assumes that his speech is protected speech.

Those words, as ugly as they are, are protected. He cannot lose his job over them.

Sure he can. And he might lose his girlfriend over them. Or his wife. Or his maid. Or his best friend. None of which would violate the first amendment. Because the first amendment does not deprive other parties of their freedom to decide to end their relationship with him because of what he said.

The fallacious logic here is yours. I provided some Supreme Court rulings a while back. Try reading them. The Supreme Court has deemed multiple times that firing a government employee solely because of speech/written words is an illegal violation of that employee's freedom of speech. It is settled law.

My claim is that the first amendment does not require employment, not that the Supreme Court agrees with me.

Are you changing your claim from "firing him would violate the first amendment" to "the Supreme Court has ruled that firing him would violate the first amendment"? Those are two different claims that you seem to have confused.

 

[D H]

Are you changing your claim from "firing him would violate the first amendment" to "the Supreme Court has ruled that firing him would violate the first amendment"? Those are two different claims that you seem to have confused.

I am claiming that firing him because of his words alone (rather than his acts) would constitute a violation of his first amendment rights. Many of you are claiming the opposite, that it would not. My opinion doesn't really count for a hill of beans, and neither does yours. The only opinion that does count is that of the Supreme Court. Now obviously, since Chirvell hasn't even been fired yet, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on this particular issue. They have weighed in on similar cases and have found that terminating government employees for what they say outside the bounds of work is a violation of those employees' civil rights: Those terminations are illegal. The employment has to be reinstated.The confusion here appears to be yours. Do you even understand what the first amendment is about? Given this earlier post, I suspect not:

But a claim that I violated my plumber's free speech rights by choosing not to associate with him any longer is just fallacious logic.

Your choice of a plumber has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. As another example, freedom of speech does not exist at this website. We ban spammers on sight, we don't allow discussions of conspiracy theories, we don't allow people to post their own personal theories of physics, we filter out curse words. So how do we get away with our utter trouncing of the first amendment? Simple. Physics Forums is a privately-owned website. We in fact are not trouncing all over the first amendment. How can we? The first amendment does not apply to us.

The first amendment is not a constraint on people or private entities. It is a constraint on the government. Since the state of Michigan is a part of the government, the first amendment does apply to it, and very much so.

 

[G037H3]

The first amendment is not a constraint on people or private entities. It is a constraint on the government. Since the state of Michigan is a part of the government, the first amendment does apply to it, and very much so.

good job :)

 

[Evo]

I think we've flogged this to death.