<p>Yalemom: I know. But mimimom, in error, had subbed “Cox” for when she meant Armstrong in some of her text in post 126. Once pointed out, she went back and edited her post 126. So, if you are reading it now, it is correct and you may not see what it was that I was pointing out in my post 128. </p>
<p>musicprnt…I agree that what Shirvell has said, written, and done goes beyond simply free speech and is harassment, stalking, and could incite harm.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I agree that for many parents, if this was directed at their kid, they’d want their kid protected. And yeah, often if it were a girl, there would be some protection put in place. I know Armstrong is trying to get a protection/restraining order and it seems odd that it wasn’t immediate. But I hope he does obtain it. In any case, seems like the whole campus up to the President has his back. But still, as a parent, I’d be real concerned for his safety because not only is Shrivell a threat, but he could have incited others who follow his writings and have his leanings.</p>
<p>Quote:
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>Imagine you could have said the same for Hitler …
Misguided judgement whether the personal intent is good never makes it “OK”</p>
<p>Sorry, I was gone for the weekend visiting my son at Ole Miss, so my reply is belated. No, I wasn’t offended, just having some rude fun. I’ve read enough of your usually elucidating posts to know that you weren’t really being smug and condescending. But it probably seemed like <em>I</em> was, which is what I get for posting things before my brain has done its job. Cheers!</p>
<p>Well. I don’t think that Shirvell is causing harm from a LEGAL point of view (that remains to be proven by the courts) I’m sure it’s upsetting to have to deal with someone who is so completely against you and your ideas. I’m not gay, so by defintion, I don’t agree with a gay lifestyle for myself. I’m not against it for any other adult, though. I believe that gay people are born gay, and I say go for it if that’s your preference. As for swatstikas and 24 hour a day blogging, no I wouldn’t like it much- that’s why I’m not involved in politics.</p>
<p>Hmmm… I think Jesus was in the business of saving lives not taking lives. He did not care if one was rich or poor, clean or unclean.
The optimal difference is whether your (good) intention hurts people. Clearly the Shirvell’s actions are a crusade against someone who does not fit into his idea of what is the norm. However what is the norm for one individual is not the norm for another. The last I heard we live in a free country and as long as we don’t step over the line of hurting someone else’s wellbeing we have a right to practice our beliefs. I don’t think anyone can say Shrivell is harmless in this matter. In fact you can say the man is dangerous in his actions and his hatrid toward another.</p>
<p>Mimi - I can’t understand why you think it’s acceptable for someone involved in college government or any other type of politics to have someone like Shirvell slandering him.blogging about him and stalking him 24 hours a day.</p>
<p>^^I can say that his speech, no matter how much you or I disagree with him, is protected by the U.S. Constitution. It is precisely that which keeps our country by being taken over by a despot who will keep you (or me) from speaking out.</p>
<p>There is a difference between free speech and libel, slander, harassment, and stalking. And if a crime has been committed, there is also the issue of hate crime.</p>
<p>Also, besides the law…if stalking becomes threatening or endangers the receiving end, it can be grounds for issuance of a civil restraining order, which Chris Armstrong is now pursuing and a hearing is imminent.</p>
<p>mimi, I don’t necessarily think that the content of the speech itself (unless inflammatory) is an issue, but the manner, the persistence, and the invasion of boundaries. I would consider it just as inappropriate for someone in Shirvell’s position to be cyber-stalking any student (doesn’t have to be a student in gov’t, in a particular organization, etc.). So for example if something like anime, or skateboarding, or some other activity causes a government official to become unglued and engage in obsessive oversight of the student, then the official has overstepped his bounds and the student’s boundaries. I would be disturbed if the student headed up a conservative religious organization on campus, and Shirvell were an atheist and stalking, harrassing the student.</p>
<p>Chris Armstrong’s hearing to get an order of protection against Shirvell was to be held today. It was postponed this morning by the court for 3 WEEKS! This is shocking. I guess the judge and or courts can be added to the list of politicos who don’t want to take a stand against Shirvell. I’m glad I don’t live in Michigan. My son, however, is a student at UMich, which is why I am so concerned about this entire situation.</p>
<p>That is truly shocking. I always thought that when a person tries to obtain a restraining order, that time was of essence and that the process happened rather swiftly. </p>
<p>Can you imagine if some harm were to be done to Chris Armstrong during the next three weeks???</p>
<p>I hope this causes outrage at both UMich and in the state of Michigan.</p>
<p>Also, while not the same as a restraining order, UMich will not allow Shirvell on their campus and that says that some sort of “governing body” (the one for the university) did find just cause to limit Shirvell’s access to this young man (Armstrong).</p>
<p>minimom, again, you apparently didn’t read the blog. This was stalking, harassment, invasion of privacy, not mere disagreement with someone else’s views.</p>
<p>He filed for the protective order Sept 13th. Oct 25th is just not right.</p>
<p>This is because they have not/cannot serve papers on Shirvell. Now that he is out on leave, he may be laying low and this will delay it further.</p>
<p>Under the Michigan law, PPO hearings must be held within 14 days of a petition; however, when there are attorneys involved, these hearings are often adjourned (especially in a high profile case like this) to allow the attorneys to prepare, etc. Blame it on the lawyers, but reportedly Shirvall has not been served.</p>
<p>Even if Mr. Shirvell is banned from Michigan’s campus, anyone who is familiar with the campus knows that with the exception of the Diag, the campus is an urban campus on the streets on Ann Arbor. Unless Mr. Shirvell is banned from the entire city of Ann Arbor, there are many places such as off campus housing (which is where Chris Armstrong lives), restaurants, etc. where Mr. Shirvell can harrass Mr. Armstrong.</p>
<p>michone, yeah, I thought about that too because Chris lives off campus and also, having been to UMich, I know it is not a truly “contained” campus.</p>