In the same article the ACLU supports Bricker’s position and Cox’s initial protection of Shirvell.
Michigan’s governor tweeted (how annoying is the day politicians discovered twitter, incidentally) that she personally would already have fired Shirvell. I’m guessing she put some pressure on Cox as well as, of course, the Anderson Cooper exposure becoming a huge liability.
I hope there’s a trial over this, either from Armstrong suing Shirvell or Shirvell suing for wrongful dismissal, because I think those on both sides in this thread would agree that there are some definitions that need to be hammered out and defined.
I don’t understand why people keep referring to Shirvell as some dude with a simple public sector job exercising his first amendment rights. He’s an assistant attorney general. Even if there are several of these positions, it’s an official position of the law enforcement arm of the State of Michigan. Also, he’s not just voicing his opinion about some political matter. He’s harassing this guy. He’s a public official that should not be harassing the citizens (particularly members of a vulnerable group) he’s supposed to be protecting. It’s not like a teacher who was a prostitute in the past. I think it’s more like a teacher who starts harassing one of the students in her/his school because the student is gay/black/etc. That harassment itself is a breach of his job. Can you imagine a teacher writing racist shit against one of his/her students on her blog, then going on TV to continue the crazy?
In this case any hard-won judgement would benpretty narrow and in the end apply only to Michigan and still require legislative action. Not really worth the tome and expense. Better the legislature just amend the law, no?
If I were Armstrong I get a gun for protection, because now this thing has gone to a new level. Shirvell is very likely to blame Armstrong for his job troubles, and now he has time to stalk 24/7. Frankly, he seems to me more likely to escalate rather than back off.
Harassment is defined in the law. His conduct doesn’t reach that definition (so far as I am aware).
Well, that’s what his boss will have to prove at whatever hearing procedure is available for civil service employees. I don’t like his chances. And I don’t think your analysis comes from looking at the law and what it says; I think you’re simply using the word “harassment” in sort of a common-sense context.
As Bricker noted, more is coming to light that qualifies as harassment (e.g. he has contacted Armstrong several times). For Armstrong’s sake I’m glad his ability to get a restraining order/civil suit/file charges is strengthened, but on a social level I almost wish there hadn’t been contact because I’d like to see the law made clearer and harassment determined legally to include non-contact harassment (which whether it legally qualifies as such or not is certainly what most would consider harassment).
There’s also the allegation that he’d called Armstrong’s boss asking if the boss knew he (Armstrong) was a racist, but I can’t find a text version of that - it was referenced by Anderson Cooper.
I agree that politicians shouldn’t tweet. Either make a press release or not. I can’t imagine any pressure that a lame duck governor could exert on a lame duck AG of the opposite party.
You’re misunderstanding my post. I’m establishing his job as an official of the state and describing grounds for which he should be fired or at least suspended/demoted. I don’t need anything legal other than the job description of a public official in law enforcement of the State of Michigan. This requires upholding duties and certain ethical standards. BTW, not all that needs to be spelled out and as you said, some things are at the discretion of his boss. OTOH, Polycarp posted the legal definition of harassment and it looks likes his behavior, when you combine online bullying with showing up at Armstrong hangouts and contacting Armstrong, could be considered harassment.
And I responded to Polycarp’s post with a rebuttal. People v. White, 536 NW 2d 876 (Michigan Ct. Appeals 1995), specifically mentions picketing as a protected activity that does not violate Michigan’s harassment law, for example.
Where and how did he contact Armstrong?
Apart from the “he contacted Armstrong directly” claim, you can’t point to a single case where this kind of activity, in Michigan, has produced a criminal conviction. Because you can’t, because it isn’t illegal, because it can’t be, because it doesn’t fall within the reach of the law and because it’s conduct protected by the First Amendment. And this is the first I’ve seen someone say he contacted Armstrong directly, rather than simply show up to picket or protest.
I hate being in the position of defending this tool. I wish this were taking place in a state that had more defined cyberbullying laws. But I can’t simply turn off the critical thinking and join the chorus of, “Yeah, what a dick! Prosecute him!”
Wishing fervently that conduct was illegal does not make it so.
To make up for my inability to read page 3, here’s the narrative part of Armstrong’s application for restraining order, explaining what Shirvell did to him:
There does seem to be personal contact here, and it also includes as was mentioned, the claim that Shirvell contacted Armstrong’s employer [Nancy Pelosi, with whom Armstrong had a summer internship]: