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

[G037H3]

A 4 sided die... that brings back memories of D&D from childhood. Yep, I was that nerd.

older than me i assume

>_>

 

[nismaratwork]

older than me i assume

>_>

I have no frame of reference, I know only my own age, and since D&D is still played... who knows? I suppose I bear the burden of culture on these poor shoulders... well, a subculture at least.

 

[G037H3]

I have no frame of reference, I know only my own age, and since D&D is still played... who knows? I suppose I bear the burden of culture on these poor shoulders... well, a subculture at least.

Well, I figure that if the Commodore 64 was available to you, you would have had a better possible hobby than D&D. :P

 

[OmCheeto]

This is really getting off topic.

Well, the Church of Latter day OmCheeto's just got together and decided that all assistant attorneys general who verbally abuse and physically stalk college students, have fallen under the right hand of Satan and should be banished from the land, lest they recruit and corrupt the younger assistant attorneys general.

We have therefore decided to stop in Michigan for several days, on our way to that 'Sanity' rally, and picket Mr. Shrivell's house, his parents house, and those who have touched his uncleanliness, until he is banished. We will of course be carrying pictures of his Mother, Father, Siblings, and close relatives, all with swastika's and Hitleresqe mustaches, until said AAG is, as we demanded, twice before, once in the above paragraph, and now twice in this, banished.

Or fired.

I'm sure I'd be fired if I tried anything remotely similar to this crap and my employer found out about it.

The Corporation for Doing Big Things announced today that they fired one of their employees, when it came to their attention that he was burning crosses in front of the house of a black family that had recently moved into his neighborhood. Asked why he would do such things, Mr. OmCheeto stated that blacks shouldn't be allowed in his neighborhood, because according to his religious beliefs, "they just shouldn't". He also criticized his employer for firing him, as he always did his job well, and only burned the crosses when not at work. The CFDBT responded that 10 of Mr. Omcheeto's 20 subordinate employee's were black, and they felt that having him around would, in their words, "violate our policies on hostile work environment, conflict of interest, respect, tolerance, etc. etc.".

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, I figure that if the Commodore 64 was available to you, you would have had a better possible hobby than D&D. :P

Ouch! As it happens it was available... I just made time for both. I will give you a solid "touche" for that, but every time you level up, get xp, and the like in a game... you're playing a kind of D&D.

Anyway...

OmCheeto: Fired... after being arrested. Very good point.

 

[turbo]

He also criticized his employer for firing him, as he always did his job well, and only burned the crosses when not at work. The CFDBT responded that 10 of Mr. Omcheeto's 20 subordinate employee's were black, and they felt that having him around would, in their words, "violate our policies on hostile work environment, conflict of interest, respect, tolerance, etc. etc.".

There may in fact be a parallel that the AG's office should consider. Michigan does not have a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they do have a policy that protects gay state employees from discrimination in the workplace. Are 100% of the lawyers, clerks, secretaries, etc in the AG's office heterosexual? If not, Shrivell's off-duty activities might contribute to a "hostile" work environment.

 

[Al68]

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

Me, too, especially since the main discussion is whether or not he should be fired, not whether to prosecute him or prevent his speech. Employers are free to use a person's speech as criteria to decide whether or not to employ them whether the speech is protected by the first amendment or not.

 

[Hurkyl]

Me, too, especially since the main discussion is whether or not he should be fired, not whether to prosecute him or prevent his speech.

Punishing someone for speaking in an unpopular way is a form of preventing his speech. And in this case, since it's the government who would be doing the punishing...

I'm pretty sure this point had already been made and accepted. On this particular point, the debate turned to argue whether such speech is actually protected by the first amendment and if so, whether there are greater concerns that outweigh the protection.

 

[D H]

Employers are free to use a person's speech as criteria to decide whether or not to employ them whether the speech is protected by the first amendment or not.

The government is not free to do so, and this guy is a government employee.

Punishing someone for speaking in an unpopular way is a form of preventing his speech. And in this case, since it's the government who would be doing the punishing...

I'm pretty sure this point had already been made and accepted. On this particular point, the debate turned to argue whether such speech is actually protected by the first amendment and if so, whether there are greater concerns that outweigh the protection.

Based on what people have written in this thread, and from my readings of what people elsewhere write about those who espouse almost any unpopular opinion, I would say just the opposite. The popular consensus appears to be that freedom of speech is a great idea -- so long as the people who are speaking agree with the popular consensus. That is not what freedom of speech is for. It exists to protect those who espouse unpopular (and sometimes absolutely wrong) opinions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Firing someone for what they say, and the effects it has on your institution (corp, or AG Office, whichever) isn't impinging on free speech. Free speech doesn't guarantee anything other than... free speech. Stephen Hawking could propose that black holes emit teddy bears, and the result would be that people think he's lost it... his right is still protected, but consequences are too.

The first amendment allows for a debate, but it also allows for the mass expression of disapproval and the consequences that go with it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Sue the guy for defamation and vote his boss out of office. Simple plan. Legal plan.

 

[Jasongreat]

Where did the belief that free speech means you can say whatever you want come from? According to my reading of history, the term came about after the english revolution in the mid 17th cenury, and in france after their revolution in the late 18th century, when censors lost their jobs. No longer did one have to pay a censor to print speech, hence free speech. It also seemsto me it was the reason americans hated the stamp act, since they had to pay for a stamp to put onto the paper their speech was printed on, effectively making them pay for speech. If free speech really meant that one could say whatever they believe, there could be no libel, slander, or defamation laws. The only thing that has changed is that the speaker is now responsible for his/her speech, it is up to them to govern themselves or accept the consequences their speech brings and I think the AAG is about to find that out, and IMO he should.

 

[Char. Limit]

"The government may not restrict speech"

 

[Al68]

Punishing someone for speaking in an unpopular way is a form of preventing his speech. And in this case, since it's the government who would be doing the punishing...

I'm pretty sure this point had already been made and accepted. On this particular point, the debate turned to argue whether such speech is actually protected by the first amendment and if so, whether there are greater concerns that outweigh the protection.

Nonsense. Declining to employ someone isn't "punishment". And past employment does not constitute an obligation for future employment.

I have already advocated honoring whatever employment agreement exists. Which means the guy might have to be paid severance pay. You can't use the word "punishment" if the employer honors any employment agreement made.

 

[Al68]

The government is not free to do so, and this guy is a government employee.

Yes, the government is free to make employment decisions based on their speech, their dress, their bathing habits, and many other things that we are free to do.

Their simply is no "right to be employed by government". Failure to be employed by government isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

 

[nismaratwork]

I... I...

ehem.

I agree completely with Al68.

 

[Jack21222]

I... I...

ehem.

I agree completely with Al68.

Scary, isn't it?

 

[D H]

Yes, the government is free to make employment decisions based on their speech, their dress, their bathing habits, and many other things that we are free to do.

Dress, bathing habits, maybe. Speech is a different question. The US government, and by extension state and local governments, are very restricted in this regard. The state of Michigan is a just-cause employer rather than an at-will employer. This places further restrictions on why and how the state of Michigan can fire one of its employees. Firing someone just because of he said or wrote something distasteful would be grounds for a illegal termination lawsuit.

Firing someone because he crossed the line between protected speech versus prohibited speech (e.g. speech that qualifies as sexual or racial harassment) is a different matter. Badmouthing someone on the basis of gender or race is illegal. As far as I know, the same does not yet pertain to gender preference in Michigan. Firing someone because he cross the line between protected speech versus prohibited acts is also a different matter. Harassment, stalking, or being a public nuisance could be grounds for dismissal -- but only after Chirvell is given due process.

Let's turn the tables: The Bush administration would have fired James Hansen, for example, on the spot if these protections did not exist. There have been lots and lots of civil servants who have been severe thorns in the side of various administrations. Those thorns would be easily removed were it not for those protections.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dress, bathing habits, maybe. Speech is a different question. The US government, and by extension state and local governments, are very restricted in this regard. The state of Michigan is a just-cause employer rather than an at-will employer. This places further restrictions on why and how the state of Michigan can fire one of its employees. Firing someone just because of he said or wrote something distasteful would be grounds for a illegal termination lawsuit.

Firing someone because he crossed the line between protected speech versus prohibited speech (e.g. speech that qualifies as sexual or racial harassment) is a different matter. Badmouthing someone on the basis of gender or race is illegal. As far as I know, the same does not yet pertain to gender preference in Michigan. Firing someone because he cross the line between protected speech versus prohibited acts is also a different matter. Harassment, stalking, or being a public nuisance could be grounds for dismissal -- but only after Chirvell is given due process.

Let's turn the tables: The Bush administration would have fired James Hansen, for example, on the spot if these protections did not exist. There have been lots and lots of civil servants who have been severe thorns in the side of various administrations. Those thorns would be easily removed were it not for those protections.

His free speech has exposed an inability to fulfill the requirements of his job: he cannot be considered a fair and adequate representative of the state for all of its residents. He violated the standard that a civil servant needs to act in a manner befitting his job... he's out.

The protections afforded a GS worker are still breached in this case, sorry D H.

 

[D H]

And you know this because?

 

[OmCheeto]

"The government may not restrict speech"

But an employer can restrict the speech of their employees. Perhaps not while not at work, but if an employee becomes an embarrassment to a company, there are ways..

I once had a boss that hated my guts. One day, she decided she would try and get me fired. But because I was a very good worker, she had to go to very peculiar lengths in an attempt to do this. First she had the secretary count up the times I was late. It took the secretary about 4 hours, as back in the olden days, they didn't have computers. She wrote me up for being a total of two hours late over the course of a year. I was of course amazed when I saw the document. I had been 1 minute late 60 times, and 2 minutes late 30 times. She was right though. I'd violated the attendance policy. Next she wrote me up because my socks were too short. That one kind of made me do a double take. But there it was, in black and white; "Abbreviated sport socks that do not extend at least 2 inches above the ankle are not allowed". Strike two. She got me again. Luckily, circumstances arose over the next few days which changed her mind over having me fired.

But anyways, I wonder if they have an "ugly tie" policy at the AG's office.

 

[nismaratwork]

And you know this because?

Cited earlier in the thread, multiple times. Include the fact that Shirvell has denied nothing, and you can draw conclusions now.

 

[D H]

But an employer can restrict the speech of their employees.

Governments as employers are subject to more restricted rules than other employers. For example, thanks to Citizens United v. FEC, your non-government employer may now be able to force you to listen to the company's political views at mandatory meetings or risk termination. The government can't do that to its employees -- yet.

but if an employee becomes an embarrassment to a company, there are ways..

Sure. There are always ways to get rid of someone without stating the real reason for getting rid of them. Give them a bad performance review, find some obscure employment rule such as socks that are too short, ... Since most employers are at-will employers not much is required at all to terminate an undesirable employee without being hit by a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The state of Michigan however is a just-cause rather than an at-will employer and it is a governmental agency to boot.

 

[D H]

And you know this because?

Cited earlier in the thread, multiple times. Include the fact that Shirvell has denied nothing, and you can draw conclusions now.Cited earlier in the thread, multiple times. Include the fact that Shirvell has denied nothing, and you can draw conclusions now.

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.

 

[Al68]

The state of Michigan has some rather strict rules regarding terminations in general.

It may very well be true that firing this guy would violate Michigan law, or the state's employment policies. I never said otherwise. I said it wouldn't violate the first amendment.

 

[D H]

I said it wouldn't violate the first amendment.

THe US Supreme Court begs to disagree. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=391&invol=563", for example.

 

[Al68]

THe US Supreme Court begs to disagree. See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=391&invol=563", for example.

You mean the U.S. Supreme court has made rulings I disagree with! Eeeeeeek!

 

[Jack21222]

And you know this because?

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. 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.

You apparently have some more detailed knowledge of Michigan's employment laws than I do, so there may be some kind of weird technical reason they can't fire him, but it still doesn't make it right.

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

 

[DanP]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100929/us_yblog_upshot/state-attorney-launches-bizarre-internet-war-on-openly-gay-college-student;_ylt=AhXNSpSGQD8oYgT.j_UZkXtH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTVyZGQ0ZG50BGFzc2V0Ay9zL3libG9nX3Vwc2hvdC8yMDEwMDkyOS91c195YmxvZ191cHNob3Qvc3RhdGUtYXR0b3JuZXktbGF1bmNoZXMtYml6YXJyZS1pbnRlcm5ldC13YXItb24tb3Blbmx5LWdheS1jb2xsZWdlLXN0dWRlbnQEY2NvZGUDbXBfZWNfOF8xMARjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzYEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNtaWNoc3RhdGVvZmY-

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

Watch the interview Anderson Cooper has with Shirvell.

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.

 

[Jack21222]

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.