# Off-duty actions of public figures in general/Shirvell/Armstrong case in particular **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2010, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505 "2010-09-29T19:12:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/41 "2010-09-30T15:50:27Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Not to answer for Jack, but for myself, yes, most definitely yes, unequivocally and unapologetically yes: I believe the rights to privacy and the definition of what qualifies as harassment should be incomparable for Cheney/Rove/Obama/the Clintons, etc., all of whom are public figures and controversial ones at that, than for a 21 year old college student. Anyone who believes that a 21 year old who isn’t a public figure deserves no more privacy than the PotUS is is either lying or as crazy as Shirvell. Age and being enrolled in college have nothing to do with it. Your statement seems to suggest that there’s some sort of a sliding scale, and that we should weigh the degree of fame and notoriety each person has in order to gauge whether the intrusion to privacy suffered is acceptable. That’s actually not what the law says, though. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323 (1974), the Supreme Court recognized two types of public figures. In discussing whether a criminla defense lawyer was a public figure, they said: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > Respondent’s characterization of petitioner as a public figure raises a different question. That designation may rest on either of two alternative bases. In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby becomes a public figure for a limited range of issues. In either case such persons assume special prominence in the resolution of public questions. This second category is known as a “limited purpose public figure.” They continued: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community, and pervasive involvement in the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public personality for all aspects of his life. It is preferable to reduce the public-figure question to a more meaningful context by looking to the nature and extent of an individual’s participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation. The Supreme Court has adopted a three-part test to assess if a particular figure is a “limited purpose” public figure for purposes of defamation and invasion of privacy: [ul] [li]The controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution[/li][li]The presumed “limited purpose public figure” must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy[/li][li]The alleged defamation or invasion of privacy must be germane to the purported public figure’s role and participation in the controversy[/li][/ul] I fully admit I haven’t waded through the complete mass of idiocy on display in these blogs and interviews, but from what I gather, Armstrong is an adult, the student body president, and something of a gay rights activist. That certainly makes him a limited purpose public figure for the issue of gay rights, which (again, I gather from the little reading I’ve done) is the controversy that Shirvell is concerned with. So my comparison to Rove or Cheney is not completely accurate: they are public figures, with “pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.” But Armstrong is a limited purpose public figure, one who has “voluntarily inject[ed] himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy.” And as such, I don’t think he can complain. Again, though, I welcome a more thorough analysis of facts, because I’d like the answer to be different. > [@](#): > > Do you really think that if I started a “Bricker Watch” blog where I took pics from your facebook pages and your kids facebook pages (as this guy has done with relatives of Armstrong) and stood outside your house chanting “Bricker is a Nazi!” and posted pictures of you with anti-Hispanic slurs and implications you’re here illegally or that you’re Mexican cartel affiliated (I know you’re not Mexican but that’s no more insane an allegation than claiming Armstrong’s trying to seduce people into the “gay lifestyle” or is an “agent of Satan”) that you’d think I was just as within my rights to do so as a guy who stands outside the White House with an “Obamacare is Evil” sign and pic of Obama as witchdoctor sign… Really? Really? I’m not a public figure at all. > [@](#): > > …I think Armstrong has every reason to be concerned for his safety. He needs to be discharged and forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation and I’d say the same thing if he was spewing the same masturbatory fantasy fueled crap about anybody of any orientation or persuasion (though you have to admit the right wing loons have a tighter hold on hate rhetoric brand of irration). Can’t agree, because he deserves the same protection under civil service laws that everyone else does. If he were a private sector employee, as his boss I’d fire his ass in a heartbeat, and I’d have armed security standing by when I did it. But you can’t point to anything here (that I know of) that allows him to be fired from a civil service job or forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Again, I’d love to learn differently, because I think the guy is seriously unbalanced. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/42 "2010-09-30T15:55:13Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I agree his actions are probably legal (and that they should be so, being a jerk shouldnt be illegal) I completely disagree with this. He has devoted a globally accessible website devoted to tracking, defaming, and harassing a single, private individual and his acquaintances. That should be illegal as hell. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/43 "2010-09-30T15:59:44Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m saying he should be sued by Mr. Armstrong … I mean, Chriss\* … for harrassment. I don’t know civil law all that well, so I’m not familiar with a general tort of harrassment. What has to be proved to win such a claim? > [@](#): > > As to your first question: sorry I didn’t answer directly, but I figured my snarky responses (as is my motif, as it were) were pretty plain. I choose Option 1. Feel free to respond to my discussion about limited purpose public figures above. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/44 "2010-09-30T16:01:02Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@Simplicio](#): > > > > I agree his actions are probably legal (and that they should be so, being a jerk shouldnt be illegal) > > I completely disagree with this. He has devoted a globally accessible website devoted to tracking, defaming, and harassing a single, private individual and his acquaintances. That should be illegal as hell. I think the law hasn’t caught up with the technology in this area. (Although I also don’t agree that this is a “private” individual.) But, yes, we need legislation that reaches this kind of conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/45 "2010-09-30T16:05:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > (Although I also don’t agree that this is a “private” individual.) It’s been a while since I dug deeply into defamation law, but it strikes me as intellectually plausible to set up a sliding scale on which to judge the relative “publicness” of a person. > [@Bricker](#): > > I think the law hasn’t caught up with the technology in this area. You might be right. I haven’t looked up any of the relevant state statutes on harassment or defamation, but I’d be surprised if all of them were written in a way that required amendment in order to take into account online activities. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/46 "2010-09-30T16:27:25Z")
Not much to add - only that the whole situation is very strange. I am interested to see how it plays out (I know nothing about civil service rights, or lack of them, in Michigan). And wow. I have never seen a man with such an obvious craving for cock in my life. ---
**Author:** ![blanx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f04885/32.png) [@blanx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blanx)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/47 "2010-09-30T16:39:58Z")
The closeted AAG hasn’t done anything illegal, just stupid, weird, and obsessive. MI has no cyber-bullying laws. I don’t know whether or not a court would grant a restraining order to Armstrong, but I think I’d certainly try it. I wish Cox had the, well, balls, to tell Shirvell to stop, and then damn the consequences, because Shirvell is putting the AG office in a very bad light. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/48 "2010-09-30T16:48:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I fully admit I haven’t waded through the complete mass of idiocy on display in these blogs and interviews, but from what I gather, Armstrong is an adult, the student body president, and something of a gay rights activist. That certainly makes him a limited purpose public figure for the issue of gay rights, which (again, I gather from the little reading I’ve done) is the controversy that Shirvell is concerned with. > > So my comparison to Rove or Cheney is not completely accurate: they are public figures, with “pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.” But Armstrong is a limited purpose public figure, one who has “voluntarily inject[ed] himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy.”. Armstrong is a limited purpose public figure when he gets involved in gay advocacy, maybe, but is he a limited purpose public figure by virtue of being student body president? And the potentially defamatory statements go beyond the subject of Armstrong’s actions as either gay rights advocate or Student Body President. And his targets sometimes aren’t even Armstrong. For instance, he says David Oltean (the younger brother of John Oltean, one of Armstrong’s friends and colleagues) "outright foams at the mouth with hatred for law enforcement and flagrantly breaks the law.. . .Sources familiar with the Olteans describe Patricia Oltean’s relationship with her sons as “bizarre” and “weird. . . .what mother with good judgment takes her teenage son gambling on a Friday night? I guess the answer is the same type of mother who obviously condones her underage son’s possession of an illegal fake ID!. [David Oltean] harbors some racist resentments against Native Americans and African Americans.. . .It seems that in the wealthy and privileged country-club-like society from which Chris Armstrong and John and David Oltean come from Native Americans and other racial minorities are to be mocked and treated like dirt under their shoes.” Even if Armstrong is a limited purpose public figure, David Oltean isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/49 "2010-09-30T16:54:54Z")
Bricker, please see post #39. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/50 "2010-09-30T17:00:24Z")
Anyone else kinda get the impression that somehow, somewhere, sometime Armstrong rebuffed an advance by Shirvell and that this is what motivates this truly bizarre behavior? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/51 "2010-09-30T17:00:44Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > (Although I also don’t agree that this is a “private” individual.) > > It’s been a while since I dug deeply into defamation law, but it strikes me as intellectually plausible to set up a sliding scale on which to judge the relative “publicness” of a person. Agreed. It just hasn’t actually been done. > [@](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I think the law hasn’t caught up with the technology in this area. > > You might be right. I haven’t looked up any of the relevant state statutes on harassment or defamation, but I’d be surprised if all of them were written in a way that required amendment in order to take into account online activities. I am open to the possibility, but for that claim to be made, someone would have to offer up the law they claim is being violated and then we can look at the conduct at issue to see if it applies. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/52 "2010-09-30T17:02:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > I’m saying he should be sued by Mr. Armstrong … I mean, Chriss\* … for harrassment. > > I don’t know civil law all that well, so I’m not familiar with a general tort of harrassment. What has to be proved to win such a claim? Well, golly. I’m not a lawyer, but off the top of my head I would say that to win a claim in a harrassment suit, that harrassment would have to be proven. What the hell are we quibbling about? This Armstrong fella is a private citizen, not even old enough to drink legally yet, and this other guy, a clearly obsessed adult, is publicly harrassing him for no reason other than he can’t get a date with him … I mean because he’s pressing for a homosexual agenda for non-gay … um … people, who don’t … um … actually I have no fucking idea why Shirvell is harrassing him but he clearly is. But far be it from me to keep you from play legal devil’s advocate to all us ignorant non-lawyer Dopers. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/53 "2010-09-30T17:08:07Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Would not allowing Shirvell to be involved in investigating/prosecuting crimes against gays constitute some kind of punishment or censure by the AG’s office? IMO, that is the absolute least they should do. I doubt it. That seems as though it would be a discretionary matter, not a punishment. And frankly, I like the AG’s office chances at an administration grievance hearing if he were to complain at being so limited. > [@](#): > > If nothing else, Shirvell has demonstrated a virulent bias against some of the types of victims that his office needs to protect. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/54 "2010-09-30T17:12:42Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > I don’t know civil law all that well, so I’m not familiar with a general tort of harrassment. What has to be proved to win such a claim? > > Well, golly. I’m not a lawyer, but off the top of my head I would say that to win a claim in a harrassment suit, that harrassment would have to be proven. > > What the hell are we quibbling about? This Armstrong fella is a private citizen, not even old enough to drink legally yet, and this other guy, a clearly obsessed adult, is publicly harrassing him for no reason other than he can’t get a date with him … I mean because he’s pressing for a homosexual agenda for non-gay … um … people, who don’t … um … actually I have no fucking idea why Shirvell is harrassing him but he clearly is. > But far be it from me to keep you from play legal devil’s advocate to all us ignorant non-lawyer Dopers. :rolleyes: I feel harassed by your post, then. Look, you must understand that you can’t walk into a court somewhere and say, “This is harassment, proven so because… uh… I say it’s harassment.” The First Amendment protects the rights of people to say stuff. But it doesn’t protect all speech and it doesn’t protect all conduct. That’s why we have laws and court cases, to define these sorts of things. I am a lawyer, yes, but a non-practicing former criminal law guy. I have no idea what the legal elements of the tort of harassment are, or if there even is such a tort in Michigan, but I know enough to know it can’t be analyzed by the **Batty** test (“It’s harassment, dude! Duh!”) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/55 "2010-09-30T17:15:44Z")
It depends on what your assertion is. If it’s mere outrage, then that’s fine. But if you’re asserting that the law of the State of Michigan requires or permits the Department of the Attorney General to dismiss Shirvell or that Armstrong has a case against him, then Bricker’s questions are appropriate. Outrage isn’t enough to prove your point. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/56 "2010-09-30T17:31:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have no idea what the legal elements of the tort of harassment are, or if there even is such a tort in Michigan, but I know enough to know it can’t be analyzed by the **Batty** test (“It’s harassment, dude! Duh!”) I don’t think Michigan has a tort of harassment. If the actions are tortuous, it would probably be under either defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress, if Armstrong can show that he did suffer from emotional distress. There’s no doubt to me at least that the actions are outrageous and intentionally designed to cause emotional distress. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/57 "2010-09-30T17:39:02Z")
When I stand on your lawn with a sign that says you molest collies and I start a blog accusing you of being a sexual deviant and a neo-nazi, and I post your picture all over the internet, calling you Satan’s little helper and claiming that you must be stopped … feel free to feel harrassed. I know I would … unless I was already a public figure, then I’d chalk up to typical potical fucknuttery. Bottom line. Armstrong is not a public figure. He is being maligned publicly for reasons that only exist in his tormentor’s mind. Call it harrassment, libel, stalking, cyber-bullying, whatever you want … it pisses all over the concept of free speech. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/58 "2010-09-30T17:49:40Z")
But the question is whether or not in Michigan, you can sue somebody for that harassment. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/59 "2010-09-30T17:51:50Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > But the question is whether or not in Michigan, you can sue somebody for that harassment. Nah. The real question is whether you can win. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505/60 "2010-09-30T18:23:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > > > Well, golly. I’m not a lawyer, but off the top of my head I would say that to win a claim in a harrassment suit, that harrassment would have to be proven. > > > > What the hell are we quibbling about? This Armstrong fella is a private citizen, not even old enough to drink legally yet, and this other guy, a clearly obsessed adult, is publicly harrassing him for no reason other than he can’t get a date with him … I mean because he’s pressing for a homosexual agenda for non-gay … um … people, who don’t … um … actually I have no fucking idea why Shirvell is harrassing him but he clearly is. > > But far be it from me to keep you from play legal devil’s advocate to all us ignorant non-lawyer Dopers. > > :rolleyes: > > I feel harassed by your post, then. > > Look, you must understand that you can’t walk into a court somewhere and say, “This is harassment, proven so because… uh… I say it’s harassment.” The First Amendment protects the rights of people to say stuff. But it doesn’t protect all speech and it doesn’t protect all conduct. That’s why we have laws and court cases, to define these sorts of things. I am a lawyer, yes, but a non-practicing former criminal law guy. I have no idea what the legal elements of the tort of harassment are, or if there even is such a tort in Michigan, but I know enough to know it can’t be analyzed by the **Batty** test (“It’s harassment, dude! Duh!”) Most states if not all, however, have clearcut definitions meeting the criminal-law standard of specificity as to what constitutes harassment. Plus, in seeking the language of the Michigan harassment statute, I found this: > [@](#): > > The first US State to include online communications in its statutes against stalking was the state of Michigan in 1993. > > The Michigan Criminal Code [Stalking: Section 28.643(8). Definitions. 1993. Sec. 411h.] makes the following definitions: > > (a) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate non continuous acts, evidencing a continuity of purpose. > (b) “Emotional distress” means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily require, medical or other professional treatment or counseling. > (c) “Harassment” means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact, that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress, and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose. > (d) “Stalking” means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, and that actually causes the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested. > (e) “Unconsented contact” means any contact with another individual that is initiated or continued without that individual’s consent, or in disregard of that individual’s expressed desire that the contact be avoided or discontinued. Unconsented contact includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: > (i) Following or appearing within the sight of that individual. > (ii) Approaching or confronting that individual in a public place or on private property. > (iii) Appearing at the workplace or residence of that individual. > (iv) Entering onto or remaining on property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual. > (v) Contacting that individual by telephone. > (vi) Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual. > (vii) Placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by that individual. > (f) Victim’ means an individual who is the target of a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment. > > Notice that unlike the California anti-stalking laws, Michigan’s laws include online communications. Section (e)(vi) in the Michigan statute above refers to “sending mail or electronic communications” as one example of “unconsented contact”. > > In addition, Michigan has a second more serious stalking statute called Aggravated Stalking. In Aggravated Stalking: [Section 28.643(9) Definitions. 1993. Sec. 411i] the law adds the presence of physical threats as an aggravating factor in stalking: > > (b) “Credible threat” means a threat to kill another individual or a threat to inflict physical injury upon another individual that is made in any manner or in any context that causes the individual hearing or receiving the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of another individual. [(Source.)](http://www.wiredsafety.org/cyberstalking_harassment/us_states/us_statestalkinglaw.html) To me, it sounds like the above quite well describes Shirvell’s modus operandi. YMMV. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/off-duty-actions-of-public-figures-in-general-shirvell-armstrong-case-in-particular/555505.md?page=4)