Hm. Actually, the statute quoted seems to assume that the harasser or stalker is directing the relevant communications at the victim, not at the public.
I’d have to agree. Putting this stuff on a blog that the victim (or anyone else) can see is substantively different than sending it in an email to the victim.
Sorry, Polycarp. “Sending mail or electronic communications to that individual.”
No chance.
Seems kinda weird to try and seperate the world into “public” and “private” citizens and assign different levels of attention one can give them before it becomes harassement.
And Armstrong does hold an elected office at a state institution after all, its kinda debatable if he’s a “private” citizen, even if the distinction is meaningful. And at least according to Shirvell, his main beef with Armstrong does appear to be related to his “office”, he’s pushing for co-ed student housing.
The “public” vs “private” debate isn’t about harassment, but about defamation.
I don’t think Chris Armstrong is considered a government official. He’s president of some kind of student body.
On the other hand, Shirvell would be a government official, yes? An assistant attorney general is not just a secretary or legal aid, right? Seems like he should be considered to be a government official with standards of employment much higher than the regular civil servant.
Count me in as someone who thinks Shirvell is yet another closet case.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
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:
[/quote]
The ones above (bolding mine) all could probably be used in a case against Shirvell, and Armstrong’s refusal to speak on camera is because he has secured legal representation and is pursuing legal action against Shirvell. I think it would be reasonable if Armstrong felt frightened, harassed and terrorized.
If it goes to trial this could be a precedent setter or at least cause a cyber bullying law to be passed. This is a case that I think even most moderately homophobic conservatives (i.e. conservatives who are against gay marriage and other gay rights issues but aren’t absolutely obsessed with them) would view with a “get a frigging life you weaselly little Narnian!” attitude.
PS- Sophomoric I admit, but I think it’s funny the AG in this case is named Mike Cox. I guess if the president of the student society was a woman it’d be handed over to special guest AG Mike Huntz.
It’s a distinction made in defamation law. It makes sense to me to apply to this situation. As has been noted above, if Shirvell’s site was all about Dick Cheney, it wouldn’t be reasonable to conclude that Cheney was being harassed. There are probably hundreds of websites like that. But attacking, tracking, and stalking someone whom few people have heard of is harassing and threatening.
I once knew a woman with the last name of Cox. Her first name was Ophelia. Great job there, parents.
Has he demonstrated this behavior towards anyone other then Armstrong? Has he ever shown bias in a job related function?
I don’t think it’s fair to make assumptions about what he may or may not do. Demonstrate he does show bias, then fire him. Baring that for whatever reason restrict his job functions however necessary. However if you can’t demonstrate he can’t perform his job fairly I’m not interested in any action being taken against him other then maybe taking a close look and reviewing his work due to accusation of untoward activity.
His personal opinions outside his job are just that, and I’m not OK with restricting public sector jobs to people that live robotic un-opinionated lives. This to me is the same deal as the former prostitute art teacher thread going on.
Prove they can’t perform the job function or live and let live.
That said his activity should have legal consequences in my opinion but law hasn’t apparently been written to address it. Kick the legislature in the ass and get them moving on it rather then place blame on the AG for not doing anything about it. If he had broken a law and Cox refused to fire him it would be an outrage. Given my understanding of the facts so far I’d have to side with Cox and allow the lunatic to keep his job.
The law must clearly define what conduct is prohibited. It’s not enough for a statute to say “includes but is not limited to” unless the statute is construed to reach only very similar type conduct. In this case, the law focuses on contact, and in fact explictly does not include activity protected by the First Amendment.
I’m sorry. It just doesn’t work.
Well, if this goes to trial it might raise awareness of the need for a better law, yes. Because this law doesn’t reach this conduct.
Totally weird and douchey. Probably protected speech for which he cannot be fired, and probably not actionable under some state tort.
In answer to the OP’s questions, what speech of public officials can be grounds for firing depends on a few factors, but the big ones are whether the speech is made on duty or off, and whether the individual is a policymaker or not. Off-duty speech of low-level employees – as in this case – is generally protected, even if it’s heinous. There is a hazy exception for speech that may reasonably interfere with government activities, whatever that means (and no one really knows, yet, but it has something to do with where and when the speech occurs and what the employee’s job it). The one hitch as it relates to this case is that most of the precedent talks about protecting “speech on matters of public concern,” which is a category that is not well-defined in the constitutional precedent. Does this case involve a matter of public concern? Who decides that? Courts are split on those issues.
The Supreme Court has implicitly made an exception for law enforcement officers, and most Circuits make it easier to fire them for heinous off-duty speech activities.
Finally, to the extent that “harassment” is a tort outside of an employment context in any state, that tort is probably not constitutional unless it crosses the line into threats or invasions of privacy (which torts are themselves the subject of considerable constitutional debate).
What about defamation? He’s accused Armstrong of being a racist, an opportunist, of attempting to convert minors to the “satanic lifestyle” of homosexuality and having sex in schools and churches, etc., none of which he seems to have any evidence for; would Armstrong have recourse here?
Extremely unlikely, for the reasons mentioned above concerning limited purpose public figures and the First Amendment.
I’m sorry, and I agree he’s a nutcase and his conduct is just awful. But the only thing that has some traction is the mention above of his also attacking someone else, who is presumably not any kind of public figure. That person might sound some cause in defamation. But not Armstrong.
I’m not sure if I agree with Bricker’s defamation analysis, but I don’t know enough about the facts of the case. Assuming for the sake of argument that the target of the harassment is a limited purpose public figure, what are the false facts said about the guy and why is it we think that he could not prove the mens rea necessary for a defamation claim?
Cooper had yet another show that dealt with the topic tonight. The video’s not online yet but his legal guests (Jeffrey Toobin and a guy who’s not Jeffrey Toobin) both believed that his actions do qualify as harassment and that he can be legally fired. Will be interested to read your critique of their argument.
Armstrong has meanwhile filed a restraining order (or something like it- they used a different term) ordering Shirvell to stay away and citing such things as Shirvell’s appearances at his meetings to shout him down, Shirvell’s calls to Armstrong’s boss accusing him of racism, filming Armstrong’s house and other general creepery. The University of Michigan has already banned Shirvell from campus for disrupting Armstrong’s meetings, a move that Shirvell is challenging.
I’ll read it when it’s up, but I’m virtually certain they’ll mention some facts about Shirvell’s actions I don’t know.
For example:
This is kind of a key point, and one that I didn’t know.
With the filming his house thing–are there any recording laws in Michigan that might be relevant?
One thing I wonder–of the few (3) stalkers I’ve met, they’ve all had crushes on their target. Does that throw in with homosexual thing, too?
Cox has reversed himself and supended the douchebag.