<p>O.K… I understand it’s kinda third-grade playground to do, but I propose we start spelling our homophobic fella’s name as “Shrivell”. It just makes me smile. ;)</p>
<p>I am glad U of Michigan has stood by this kid, that is important. It doesn’t surprise me, though, U Michigan is a big,diverse school and for example, during the 60’s U mich Anne Arbor was in the middle of the civil rights and anti war movements, so it isn’t exactly Liberty Baptist U or Bob Jones University. It is also a good school, a fine one, that also tends to attract bright, thinking kids, no matter what their political views are. </p>
<p>Part of the background on people like Shirvell, who go over the line with their rhetoric about gays, is that they are losing their battle to demonize gays, they know that even a lot of conservatives are coming around, and with young people gays by large majorities simply aren’t an issue, this is primarily an older generation trying to stem a tide, and knowing their views are marginalized. Want a good example? The case wending its way probably to the Supreme Court on the legality of gay marriage (or rather the legality of banning it) is being argued by Ted Olsen, not exactly a member of the radical left…</p>
<p>As far as Shirvell’s free speech rights, Cox is dead wrong, the right to free speech only applies in terms of the government and a private citizen. With private employers, you have no such right, and if an employee publishes something on a blog or in a paper they don’t like, or on facebook or whatever, a company in most places can fire them for that. It is a bit more tangled with public employees (since the state is the employer, for one, and also because of civil service regs) but they ultimately have the right to fire someone for speech if that speech is found to be against the function of the job. Someone in the AG’s office is supposed to be a representative of the law, and as such are supposed to carry out their duties with diligence and without prejudice. Someone with such a position who is so outspoken, who seems to feel their duty is to ‘prosecute’ something or someone, is in direct conflict with that. It doesn’t surprise me that Cox would use the first amendment to try and protect shirvel; conservative political thought is that rights are absolute, when they aren’t, never have been, that though burdens on rights are not lightly to be placed, first amendment rights like free speech and freedom of religion have bounds to them. In the case of Shirvell, his free speech if it conflicts with the nature of his job, if it raises the spectre for example that he might not discharge his duties properly due to obvious or perceived bias, the first amendment doesn’t apply.</p>
<p>As far as why Cox would hire him, that is pretty obvious, it is part of the ‘conservative base’ to include hard religious right types and cater to them. Someone asked how someone from Ave Maria law school could be hired, doesn’t take a lot to figure that out. If you look at the most recent Bush administration, the justice department was notorious for hiring all these graduates of places like Regent’s university law school, Ave Maria and similar places, law schools associated with hard right Christian belief systems. There was one person, I think her name was Margaret something, who was an Asst attorney general, who was under questioning for practices in the AG’s office in terms of hiring that are illegal, like asking political affiliation, who the interviewee voted for, and religious beliefs, and she was shocked to find out it was illegal under federal civil rights and government rules to ask someone what their religious beliefs were…so the fact that someone like Shirvell was hired shouldn’t be so surprising. </p>
<p>One thing I have heard in similar cases is comparing the actions of a Shirvell to a controversial college professor, but there is a big difference. College professors in terms of their jobs are not protected by first amendment rights, but rather the rights granted under tenure for academic freedom, big difference. Shirvell as a public employee (or private one) is covered by the first amendment, but is not immune to the consequences of their speech, unlike for the most part a college professor.</p>
<p>And yes, this is relevant, not just for the parents of gay kids, but for anyone sending their kids to school. These kinds of issues show that college is not some isolated ivory tower, isolated from the currents of society or political discourse or whatever, and this is especially relevant when dealing with a large public university and the interaction with the politics of the state.Someone made the point that some won’t let their kids go to Southern colleges and universities for fear of the environment being intolerant; but you have to wonder if this was let’s say the University of Mississippi or the University of Alabama and a similar thing happened, would the school and the government support the student or their version of Shirvell? Likewise, if a student wants to go to the University of Texas, and reads about the state instituting in their public schools a history curricula that appears to be geared towards a heavily right wing political agenda, does that mean U of T is likewise that orientation? (For the record, this is a hypothetical argument, U of T is a great school, period). And yes, the same thing would apply I am sure for parents who want their kid to go to a more conservative environment (though hopefully conservative parents would see in the Shirvell case something that is neither conservative nor liberal but rather someone over the edge, on the level of a demagogue or wors)…the point is, this is relevant.</p>
<p>musicprnt, I agree that this topic is relevant to parents interested in issues regarding college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mimmomx3, I have a hard time reconciling that statement. To me, this is not about handling controversy or politics. This young man is being stalked and harassed on campus by an individual off campus. His safety is at stake. Controversy or politics would be about arguing an issue. For instance, if Shirvell attended a meeting and argued about a policy, then it may be a controversial campus political policy and they may disagree. But in this case, the student body president is being harassed and stalked, and it also includes hate speech. He is being attacked for his sexual orientation, not his policies. I am stunned that anyone would think it is acceptable for anyone to do this to another person. </p>
<p>The fact is that so far, Shirvell is on leave, the UMich administration won’t let him on campus and a restraining order is being pursued (and I imagine Armstrong should be able to obtain one). If this were merely arguing politics or controversy, none of those things would happen. If I were this young man’s parents, I would be very concerned for my son’s safety. Whether Shirvell is capable of doing more harm or if he has incited any radicals to do harm, we don’t know. Thankfully, the campus is behind Chris Armstrong. And hopefully the law will also stand by him…he has been stalked, harassed, cyber bullied, and is a victim of hate speech due to his sexual orientation. Further, Mr. Shirvell, who has a job where citizens rely on his being unbiased in carrying out the law and justice, is beyond merely politics or controversy, as he should not be in a position to do that type of job. </p>
<p>All that said, I am in awe of how Chris Armstrong has conducted himself in this situation.</p>
<p>Curm…I’m gonna have a hard time calling him Shirvell from now on, ha ha.</p>
<p>Yes, we do have a thing called the constitution, but you make a common mistake, throwing out the first amendment every time there is a disagreement over outrageous speech. When some (usually uber right wing) type makes some outrageous statement, and there are consequences whether it is boycotts, or someone even losing their job, we hear how this is a first amendment issue of ‘freedom of speech’, that ‘my free speech was violated’, and that is nonsense. Freedom of speech only covers speech and the reaction of the government towards that speech, and the intent was to allow citizens to voice their displeasure openly and not face legal government sanction for that speech (and it obviously covers more then political speech). But the first amendment does not cover the consequences outside the government suppressing speech, you have the right to say as you want, but you have no right to shield from consequences other then legal action of the government. A true libertarian position would be that Shirvell has the right to say as he wishes but that he cannot expect there to be no consequences, for that isn’t libertarianism, that is freedom to say what you want and not to have to face consequences, which is something else.</p>
<p>And the Shirvell case fails on many levels here to be a 1st amendment issue. Besides the obvious one, that employees have no right to free speech assumptions, even to a large extent with public employers (though the grounds are different there, it is more complicated), there is another part to this, and that is where the speech in question interferes with the job. Shirvell is not some clerk counting paper clips, he isn’t someone supervising road kill cleanup or the like, he is one of the top officials at the Attorney General’s office, who are supposed to enforce the law of the state without bias or prejudice,period. But given his outrageous anti gay stance, and more importantly, the way he has gone after this one boy, a student at the state university, how can such a person be dispassionate about justice? Can someone so radical, for example, if asked to look into allegations of misconduct by local law enforcement where crimes against gays is concerned, act fairly? Can a person of such outspoken beliefs be trusted investigating someone who shoots and kills an anti abortion doctor, or prosecuting the person, when his own position can be considered biased? Could someone who has supported a group like the black panthers openly be expected to prosecute a similar radical group for something they have done? Libertarianism would argue that this is not a libertarian issue, that libertarianism is defined as the right to do as you please, as long as what you are doing is not causing harm to others or society or the like. Shirvell is causing harm, his statements put a lack of trust in the AG’s office in many people’s minds, and the first amendment and libertarian principles would be in accord with sanctions being taken, because harm is one of the ultimate reasons for burdens upon any right. Yelling fire in a movie theater is not a first amendment right, nor is publishing classified material that is found to be truly sensitive (unlike politically embarassing stuff, which often is classified for that reason only), and speech that undermines the authority of a job, private or public, is grounds as well.</p>
<p>I also find often that ‘libertarian conservative’ is an oxymoron, because that libertarianism often very one sided. Someone who claims this denies the right of a government to ban smoking in public places, or to issue environmental regulations or motorcycle hemlet laws,things that concern them, but on the other hand, are fully in favor of the law restricting things they don’t like. Classic example? Many of those arguing libertarianism, including Rand Paul, when it comes to social issues like gay marriage or gay rights laws or similar issues are in favor of the government banning gay marriage or putting out laws regulating what kind of sex people have. If they were libertarian (which I have known some true libertarians, and I respect their beliefs, they are true to it across the board, even if I disagree with their positions) they could not argue those positions honestly; true libertarians would be saying that what someone does in their bedroom, or who they wish to marry, is no business of the government (in fact, they would argue the government has no right to be in marriage at all). </p>
<p>As far as tolerance goes, I have heard that used a lot more then it should be. It is interesting that this often comes from those who demonize anyone who disagrees with them, who use the word “liberal” as you just did as some sort of broad based perjorative, as in “this is all the fault of liberals”, which among other things assumes all liberals are the same, or even liberals for that matter…and more importantly, I usually hear that thrown out when some uber right wing type says something most normal people would find despicable, and argue that tolerance means that the person should face no consequences or have anyone yell back, and that is nothing more then arguing “I can say what I want, and don’t you dare holler back”. Sorry, but you just used a term like “liberal” as a perjorative stereotype, and then you are talking about tolerance? Tolerance is about live and let live, it is also about respecting that other people have different ideas, ones we can disagree with, but also respect that the other person is a human being. But that Tolerance doesn’t mean accepting when other people are intolerant and sit there and smile and say “that’s nice”, it doesn’t mean allowing someone like a Shirvell who is dehumanizing someone, in this case a young man, to go ahead and do so without consequences. Tolerance does not cover when someone else is being intolerant, it is not tolerance to let a bigot of any kind spew what they want and not answer it. It is intolerant when someone makes a speech defining their beliefs, it is quite the other thing when someone says something that dehumanizing others. I would fight for the right to the death of Shirvell to say what he wants, any attempt to stop him from saying it, but I also would fight to the death the right of those to yell back at him. Justice Brandeis defined the first amendment better then anyone, when he said that the answer to bad speech is not suppressing the bad speech, but answering it with even more, good speech. In the case of Shirvell, those fighting against him are doing that, they are using their speech to make clear that his words and actions are over the line, that they won’t allow him to use his right to free speech to demonize a young man.
That is free speech in action, telling others they shouldn’t criticize Shirvell because it is intolerant itself is a restriction on free speech, that is saying Shirvell can yell but you can’t yell back.</p>
<p>And you are also trying to claim that in pressuring Cox they are restricting his free speech, but you contradict yourself. You said that any legal action against Shirvell should be taken, and the point is, his speech in this case is a legal matter, because when free speech interferes with the performance of a job, or when actions give the appearence that the government is out to get someone, this is no longer about tolerance or free speech. The fact that Shirvell is an official of the government, and the kid is a student at a state run university, makes this even more so, if you are at a facility of the government and have a government official making clear they think you are a low life, scum, whatever, that is creating the impression that the kid isn’t welcome at the school or safe, and that is definitely an issue, it violates all kind of things.</p>
<p>musicprnt, in your post #124, you keep referring to “you.” I don’t know who you are addressing but your post follows my post #123, and so it may come across as you are responding to me but I never mentioned any of the things you are referring to. I think you should clarify who you are addressing in your post and/or quote the person’s remarks you are referring to…one or the other. Thank you. </p>
<p>Also, as you wrote in an earlier post, this topic is relevant to life on a college campus, and I think it would be good to keep to that, as opposed to political viewpoints, as this is the parent forum. Just a suggestion.</p>
<p>1)If a student runs for student government, they should expect for their politics to be challenged, supported and everything in between by members of the student body, faculty and community. Armstrong has the complete right to advocate for whatever interest group he chooses, and in so doing must accept criticism of his politics. That being said, and I said it before, if it crosses the line from an expression of free speech and opinion into criminal harassment or slander/libel (and I’m not a lawyer nor do I have a deep understanding of this case) then by all means Armstrong (and the authorities)should pursue legal action against Shirvell. Shirvell’s employer should also be free to dismiss or retain him- although this is complicated because he is a state worker. I’m not sure what laws regarding employment apply there.</p>
<p>2)As far as libertarianism goes, I can’t speak for the party, and certainly not for Rand Paul, but I think that classic liberatians feel that sexual choice, as long as it is between consenting legal adults is not a government issue. Privately, one can have an opinion on homosexuality, and that includes Mr. Paul. Sadly, libertarianism is being co-opted by the Tea Party Neo Conservatives and their relgious fundamentalist base, which do want to have government meddling into private affairs. For the record, I don’t believe that the government has the right to force people to wear seatbelts, helmets or not smoke in public (private businesses should have the right to decide who can smoke in their place of business).</p>
<p>3)Shirvell is not causing harm, per se. He is expressing his opinion, as is Armstrong. One is free to agree or disagree with either. I think it’s wonderful that young adults like Armstrong are finding ways to engage in the political system and pursue what they consider to be important issues. I hope that this situation has clarified for him that there are things worth fighting for, and that sometimes it’s not an easy fight. I don’t agree with Armstrong’s politics, but I’m glad that he’s not just a passive, complaining observer.</p>
<p>I think this is a very difficult case. Shirvell is a lawyer, so he may have been careful in crafting his statements so they are all (arguably) protected by the First Amendment. This creates problems for Cox, because Shirvell is a government employee, who does have private speech rights. Clearly, it would be nice if he could be fired just for being a lunatic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^Post 126…I think in #3, you are using the name, Cox, where you meant Chris Armstrong? Please clarify as I think it needs correction. </p>
<p>By the way, the student body elected Chris Armstrong as their leader and so obviously stand behind him and what he finds to be “important issues”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here, too, I think you mean Armstrong?
In your point #1, it isn’t just that Chris Armstrong’s “politics” are being challenged. He is being harassed and stalked. Mr. Shirvell has stalked him at his home. He has created hate speech (swatiskas on this young man’s image for example) and slandered him personally, not just his politics. He has harassed him as well for being gay, not just his politics. (being gay is not someone’s “politics”) He has stalked this young man’s friends and family. If it were just debating politics, UMich would not be banning Shirvell from the campus. Armstrong (student) would not need to pursue a restraining order. It is BEYOND merely “politics.”</p>
<p>^^ Thanks for the edit. Changed my post. </p>
<p>“Harassment” and “stalking” are legal terms. If I hang out at the same Starbucks everyday because I know you’ll be there, am I stalking you? I’m not saying that Armstrong isn’t being stalked or harassed- that’s for the police and the law to decide. Calling someone at home isn’t harassment, necessarily.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure I understand what hate speech is, either. Hate speech, in my opinion, is an extremely dangerous concept that the government can kind of cobble together to limit the first amendment. Hate, while nothing that I’d like to emulate, is not against the law. You can hate anyone (don’t recommend it, by the way!)- polluters, adulterers, bigamists, child abusers, ‘breeders’, women, men, children, gay people- it’s not ILLEGAL to have anyone. We already have laws to deal with crime. Crimes against a protected class (i.e., ‘hate crimes’) are discriminatory. It’s a hate crime to kill a person because they’re gay…but isn’t it still a crime to kill a straight person? </p>
<p>As to your last point, a university has the power to restrict people from its campus for whatever reasons it chooses. Personally, I think it’s a great idea to keep Shirvell from the campus- he has no business being there.</p>
<p>Soozie-
Sorry, I was responding to Mimi, not yourself, for some reason the original message didn’t get into my post, I am not good at quoting a post. I apologize if you think I was responding to yours, i wasn’t.</p>
<p>When D was a senior in h.s., her good friend’s mom wanted the friend to go to Ave Maria for college. D & friend stayed at friend’s grandma’s house in Florida for spring break & visited AM to make the family happy. It was really hot, so D & friend went for their overnight visit in shorts & tank tops. BIG mistake!! They felt like street walkers the entire time they were on the campus! They were thoroughly creeped out. They attended a Catholic high school, but they were unprepared for what they encountered at AM … it’s a bit different than what they expected.</p>
<p>A friend worked at AM law school … felt the need to find a new job soon after taking the job.</p>
<p>To each his own, but it’s not your run-of-the-mill school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with the premise here. All opinions are not the same in terms of harm. If person A expresses the opinion that person B is less than human and deserves to be publically humiliated, that’s one kind of opinion. If person B then expresses their opinion that they find person A to be a threat to their safety, that’s another kind of opinion.</p>
<p>In other words, opinions can most certainly cause harm. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on prior history. This senario is actually fairly common with domestic violence. An abuser would insist that it they just happened to show up at the same place and same time as their victim; even when the victim would move onto, say, a new coffee shop.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. And this case shows that no matter how carefully a state/school is selected, no where is truly safe.</p>
<p>I’ll admit to doing some wishful thinking about my son moving from Texas to Massachusetts. I want to believe that he’s safe, as do all parents. And I do believe he is safer in MA than in TX but he/we still need to keep our guard up and to be aware. It’s been a good reminder for us to touch base with our son yet again on these issues, from both sides. Not only is important to expect to be treated respectfully, no matter how vile we find those we disagree with it’s equally important to not dehumanize them or it’s too easy to cross the line.</p>
<p>Mimi, I apologize, your position sounds like a true libertarian, one that I respect even if I don’t agree. The problem is it has been hijacked, the tea party and Rand Paul and his old man are not true libertarians, because they reserve where they are libertarian, and you are correct, it is usually around the hot button issues of the religious right types (whose idea of religious freedom is everyone should live by their religious law, not unlike the fundamentalist Islam they scream about). </p>
<p>As far as Shirvell goes, while he has free speech rights, they are limited, even as a public employee. If Shirvell spoke out against the particular policy he is upset about, i.e getting rid of monosexual dorms, it would be political speech; if he spoke out against specific policies, it would be political speech. </p>
<p>First of all, Shirvell’s speech, though sadly representing what passes for political discourse these days, are personal attacks on the character of the kid. He has called him a Nazi, he has labelled him as the head of some sort of Gay cabal out to ‘convert’ kids, he has accused him of a lot worse, smearing his character, and why? Simply because he is gay. That is not political speech as it should be, that is basically character assasination, and while it is an old tradition, it doesn’t make it right. On the other hand, he does have a right to say it, I would fight for that right as a private citizen.</p>
<p>But, and this is where I think even you agree, there are limits, and on Mr. Shirvell there are two key things that make this beyond free speech:</p>
<p>-Mr. Shirvell is not acting as only a private citizen, nor is he some anonymous state worker, and that is key. Public service jobs, where someone is representative of the state have special burdens upon them, because in that role they serve as diverse public and as such cannot have anything that brings into question their ability to do the job (and there is long case law on this, including several supreme court decisons). Thus, for example, a cop who produces a white supremacist newspaper, or a teacher who produces a black panther paper, brings question into the performance of their job. Can a white cop who publishes a white supremacist newspaper act fairly towards black or hispanic citizens, and more importantly, if the public is aware through this paper and statements the cop supports white supremacy, trust the cop to serve them well if they are black/hispanic? Can a parent of a white student assume that someone who published anti white rhetoric will treat their child fairly? Public servants have a trust relationship with the citizens, and questions about that trust are serious.</p>
<p>If Mr. Shirvell were ordering paper clips or doing the books, his statements probably would be protected, because in his job dealings it is unlikely his views would cause conflict with the public they serve, same for the guy picking up garbage, etc. But he is in a high profile position which needs ultimate trust of the public, and by his attacks on gays, liberals and other the way he has, it raises serious questions about his position as one of the senior people in state law enforcement. An abortion clinic doctor could wonder if such a person would protect his clinic from those trying to bomb it or in the case someoen does something, prosecute them. Likewise, could someone who is gay assume that Shirvell and his office would go after someone who beat him up, or after a local police force that refused to help a gay victim of crime or prosecute those who did it? In his role in the AG’s office, his statements constitute things that cause the public to lose trust in the office.</p>
<p>Want a really clear example of this? Think back to 1960’s, Mississippi, and you have the Chief of Police in Philadelphia, Miss, who is an avowed racist, who has called blacks animals and the like, and called civil rights workers perverts and communists…and 4 civil rights workers are murdered. Do you think that chief of police is going to do anything? (and obviously he and most law enforcement in the south didn’t, it is way civil rights prosecution happened and the civil rights law that Mr. Paul seems to think were wrong…). </p>
<p>There is an obverse case to this, some maintenance supervisor for NJ Transit was video’ed burning a Koran in protest over the WTC Mosque. He was fired for doing that, even though this was on his own time and he was not in uniform. That is questionable, because unlike Mr. Shirvell, the clown in question does not interact with the public as part of his NJ transit job, he doesn’t have any kind of role with the public, and probably is free speech…on the other hand, had he been a NJ transit cop, executive, conductor, who deal with the public, some of whom are Moslem, it would raise questions about their ability to be fair dealing with moslem customers…big difference. </p>
<p>And the harm here isn’t so much Mr. Armstrong (more on that in a bit), but rather the harm to the AG’s office in terms of its authority and trust, and that with public employees overrides free speech rights.</p>
<p>-There is also harm in his actions. leaving out his position, even assuming he was a private citizen, some aspects of his behavior go over the legal line between protest and speech and enter harassment territory</p>
<pre><code>-First of all, there is no legal right to call someone at home and harangue them; uninvited phone calls have long been held to be harassment. For example, the so called “No Call” list for telemarketers was challenged by telemarketer groups as restriction of free speech, and one of the things in the court ruling arguing in favor of the law was that unsolicited telephone calls like that are violations of privacy and also can constitute harassment.
And when the speech involves derogatory speech, yelling and screaming, or calling family members up and yelling at them, that is not free speech, that is harassment. If I called up my neighbor continuously and left rude messages on his voice mail, or called his wife an ethnic slur, and kept yelling outside his house at him that he was a no good bum, I could be arrested for harassment and probably would be.
</code></pre>
<p>-Cyber bullying is a little more gray, but that could fall under the term harassment as well, it depends. It is very similar to incitement to riot, if that speech is felt to be causing the party to become the target of harrasment or worse, it is not protected. And obviously, things like libel can be covered by this as well, if for example Shrivell made claims that Mr. Armstrong was a pedophile or something similar. </p>
<p>Classic example? Right to life or one of the similar groups had a website up that listed names and addresses of abortion doctors, and also had red x’s through the names of abortion doctors who had been killed. That site was shut down, because not only did it give the names and addresses of abortion doctors, the court found that by showing which had died it was inciting followers to go out and kill abortion doctors, and that isn’t legal. </p>
<p>Now Mr. Shirvell isn’t saying to kill Mr. Armstrong, but his language is so extreme, his rhetoric and actions are so out there on his blog and such, that it could be construed by a court as inciting harm against Mr. Armstrong, if they feel the language could incite someone to commit mayhem (that actually is a legal term in some places, kind of neat IMO:). Incitement to riot and incitement in Mayhem don’t require an actual event to happen, it can be used if there is proof people are planning to act on those words or likely to, though it is more common after the fact. Not sure if Shirvell’s acts would be held to be this, but they could be. </p>
<p>-And following around Mr. Armstrong on campus, seeking out his family members, are direct harassment if such asociation is unwanted. While the right to protest is there, there is a line between protest and individual harassment, and shirvell has crossed that line it looks like.</p>
<p>As far as hate speech and hate crimes, there is a fundamental difference between the two. Hate speech cannot be a crime, it is covered by the first amendment, and no one is proposing that; As noted above, Mr. Shirvell is not being actioned because of hate speech laws (those don’t exist), he is being actioned becaue his speech, hate or not, casts doubt on his position as an assistant AG, a law enforcement person. Like I said, if Mr. Shirvell was picking up road kill, his position on gays wouldn’t matter, but as a member of the AG’s office? </p>
<p>As far as hate crimes go, the law differentiates motive, which hate speech can give an indication. If Mr. Shirvell makes clear through his speech that he hates gay people, thinks they are garbage, subhuman, whatever, he has the right to do that. But if he one day goes out and kills Mr. Armstrong, his anti gay speech is grounds to assume that the crime was committed out of hate simply because Mr. Armstrong was gay (or black, or a woman, or a Catholic, or whatever).</p>
<p>This is true in crimes in general, though. If you kill someone by accident and are found negligent, you will be convicted of manslaughter,with penalty X; if you kill someone spontaneously, deliberately, you are give penalty Y, where Y is usally >X; if you plan a murder, and carry it out, it is murder 1, and the penalties are the stiffest, it is about why you did it. What a hate crime code says is that if the motive for the crime is hate based simply on who the person is, it deserves stiffer penalties then for a crime of, let’s say economic motive, it establishes relative penalties as murder 1 is from murder 2, it is nothing unusual. The key point here is it isn’t about speech, it is about actions; if you go around screeching anti gay slurs, but don’t do anything illegal to a gay person, that is not actionable (let’s assume a private citizen here); if you go out and beat up a gay person, the fact you made those statements can be used as evidence of hatred towards gays and the motive for the crime. It is no difference in a murder case where evidence is introduced you told people before the crime was committed that you wanted to murder the SOB, and were going to do it, that could be used to show it wasn’t a crime of opportunity, but murder1.</p>
<p>And the reason for hate crimes, while I understand your distaste, I am not happy about them entirely, is to try and ensure that victims of bias based crimes see justice done. For example, in some places, when gays are targeted for crimes, a lot of the time local law enforcement does little, and even if convicted, judges often will dish out ridiculously low sentences because of their own bias, it is very similar to what blacks experienced down south during Jim Crowe. With hate crimes statutes, judges are not allowed to do that, and it also allows state prosecutors to make sure that local law enforcement and juries can’t just let it go, refusing to convict because of their own biases. It also sends a message that the law will not tolerate singling out people for who they are, hurting them, simply because of who they are, it is for deterrance. One of the misnomers is all crimes are about hate (they aren’t), or that if for example someone kills a gay person it is automatically a hate crime (it isn’t, there needs to be corroborating proof) or that it only would apply one way (it doesn’t; a guy was just convicted under the hate crimes laws in NY of raping a woman who was white, he was black, and the motive was found to be anti white hatred). </p>
<p>In a perfect world we wouldn’t need these, but as long as people have hate and are willing to act on it, simply because of who someone is, and there are law enforcement and the like who seem to think that is okay, I feel it is needed…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the topic of THIS thread is relevant to life on a college campus, that campus is Michigan, as this incident appears to be an isolated incident between two individuals who happen to have an official position and visibly disagree on issues of sexual preferences and morality.</p>
<p>If the actions of a rogue Assistant AG in Michigan are of direct interest to parents nationwide, why should the political viewpoints associated with all parts of that incidents be less important or oppressed? </p>
<p>Wasn’t the fact that this lunatic attended a conservation religious school fair game? Has his political affiliations be kept out of this discussion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that the student can choose to separate his public represenation from his personal and private choices. A person who is gay might choose not be defined by his sexual preferences by his public actions. They only become politics when gay issues become part of the public platform.</p>
<p>While Armstrong “must accept criticism of his politics,” he should not be subjected to criticisms of his personal and private choices.</p>
<p>Soozievt - Cox is Shirvell’s boss - the AG.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you read the blog?? I did. Before it was closed off. It wasn’t just “disagreement with Armstrong’s policy positions in his role as UMich student body president.” It was STALKING. Personal details of the Armstrong family vacations extending back several years. Personal details exposed about anyone who happened to be a friend or acquaintance of Armstrong. It was major harassment and like I said upthread, if this blog was directed at any of our daughters, we’d have round-the-clock security guards hired in a jiffy.</p>
<p>Mimi - you think Shirvell isn’t causing harm. Is it because Shirvell’s actions are directed towards someone whose lifestyle you don’t agree with? How would you feel if someone was stalking you day and night, blogging irrationally about you and covering your face with swastikas. Would you still think it’s harmless?</p>
<p>I can understand where mimi is coming from, if she is libertarian then one of the precepts of that view is that things like speech should not be burdened. that speech itself is not the problem. The problem with that view, which is why to me absolute libertarianism is problematic, is that isn’t always the case, that words go over the line into harassment. And the law recognizes this, for example in incitement to riot, that words have power. I also don’t know if Mimi ever saw what the guy was doing or not.</p>
<p>I have heard similar arguments about freedom of religion, that for example some evangelical kid in a public school wearing a t shirt that cites leviticus codes against gays is covered by freedom of religion, but the school has every right to tell that child to wear it inside out or replace it, because such a citing can cause discord in school (in fact, most schools ban wearing any kind of such t shirt, political, relgious, whatever, for those reasons). Likewise some religious kid yelling that gays are going to hell is not covered by freedom of speech or religion in the classroom. </p>
<p>Shirvell’s blog cite, especially that it contains personal information, can (and should be IMO) be construed as harassment, and more importantly, can also be considered as incitement to violence or mayhem. With freedom of speech comes consequences, and if something can be deemed to be potentially inciting harm, then it no longer is protected, and with harm like that you cannot wait, as many liberarians would claim, until after something has happened, because then the person being harassed could be dead. If some religious nut is preaching the overthrow of the local town government, they could be charged in a similar way. A right to life website, that had the names and addresses of aborton doctors and showed which had been killed, was ordered pulled down and upheld through the supreme court…you get the idea.</p>
<p>The fear of libertarians is that such a thing could be used for anything, that someone could shut down a political website that, for example, called a political rival a schnook or a traitor or whatever as ‘hate speech’ or the like…however, case law already covers that, you cannot just claim that and have speech suppressed, you have to show a reasonable argument that such words could cause harm, and it is a large burden. In his case, by the language and more importantly, the information Shirvell put up, and in the fact of his position, to me that burden is more then fulfilled…any kind of right has a burden upon it, that right ends when a harm to someone else or others can happen from exercise of that right.</p>