A truly devout Roman Catholic would make better pizza.
Oh, wait, his name is Monaghan, so that’d make him Irish Catholic. Which explains the crappy pizza.
Shirvell looks to be stark raving insane. I can’t speculate on his sexuality, but I be he loves working for Mike Cox!
Oh, Bricker, Shirvell stated in his blog that Armstrong was engaged in under aged binge drinking at a party, which is libel per se as it is a crime. Armstrong was out of town at the time. Shirvell hadn’t checked to see if Armstrong actually attended the party. It’s a slam dunk.
Shirvell reminds me of the Chris Cooper character in American Beauty.
Yep, at some point (like that Koran-burning fellow in Florida, or Pat Robinson) they cease being objects of ridicule and become objects of pity. Add a pinch of actual danger to the mix and you have Shirvell.
We can only hope nobody gets hurt.
That Shrivelled weenie is a human kick-me-in-the-head dog.
Bricker, down that way can the limited privledge be lost if malice is proven? Given the facts, do you think there is there malice?
Coincidentally, I’m heading into the office tomorrow to draft a libel claim for some politicians who are being attacked, and for the last couple of days have been receiving some libelous publications attacking some lawers and judges on a matter that has already had me in the courts, so at the moment I’m quite interested in this sort of libel of public figures v. free speech issue.
IANAL, but I have questions for them. Is malice particularly relevant to libel or slander. I’m sure truth is, and from what I recall, for “public” persons there is an issue of proving intent – that the publisher of the material must actually know the material is false, or they demonstrate complete disregard for whether or not it is true. I’m speaking in non-legalese, so please be liberal in your interpretation of what I’m trying to say.
Hmm, you could pretend to be my lawyers and interpret my ignorant statements in the best possible light.
So anyway, does this knowledge of untruth, or disregard for the truth, in and of itself constitute malice? I’m thinking of somebody like a tabloid editor who who prints any salacious crap available, without any fact checking at all, who prints garbage simply to sell papers. I personally wouldn’t call that malicious, no mare than I would call a shark biting off my leg malicious. But there sill ought to be a means available to stop it and to punish it.
Here on the other side of the big lake, it is hugely relevant. In Canada, if Fred is a normal guy, and Barney is a normal guy, and Fred libels Barney, then Fred is liable for whatever damages a jury pulls out of the air. If Fred is a normal guy, and Barney is a Grand Pubah politician, lot of slack is cut for Fred, for it is important to not put a chill on political free speech. This sort of privilege is not unfettered, for up here in the Great White, if Fred libels the Grand Pubah politician with something that is both untrue and malicious, then he loses the protection (the partial privilege) and is liable for whatever damages the jury pulls out of the air. I too am interested to hear from American lawyers on how malice plays into libel made against a politician.
I am a student at University of Michigan and have personally witnessed Shirvell around campus protesting with his sign depicting the rainbow flag/swastika. When asking him why exactly he dislikes Armstrong, the closest thing to a clear answer he gave me was repeating the fact that Armstrong is, in fact, a homosexual and has a “dangerous homosexual agenda”. It was quite apparent that not only is Shirvell completely off his rocker, but he’s a bigot too.
Asked Crazy Joe. Just sayin’.
Isn’t that a misdemeanor? Can you really libel someone with a misdemeanor?
Malice for defamation purposes is knowing falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth. Yes, a misdemeanor is usually enough for the criminal element in per se libel. For purposes of privilege attitude towards the victim is relevant to proving malice. A good law school will have Sack on Defamation.
Sampiro, that link was disturbing. Did Armstrong get the restraining order?
It’s like Shrivell is channelling Phred Phelps level of obsessive Crazy.
And nobody ever called him on it, or ever gave him a taste of his own medicine? Well shit. At least someone should start blogs and do “news” interviews vicioulsy attacking him (under the protection of Free Speech). Give him his own treatment and keep doing it. The other alternative is to start working on HIS boss to have the asshole fired.
The next rime someone seems him protesting, I’d love it if they could go up to him and get him to elaborate on just what this homosexual agenda entails. All those bigots like throwing that about, but no one ever says what it is.
He gave at least one specific to Anderson Cooper – Armstrong was advocating “gender neutral” dorms. I’m not entirely sure what that would mean in practice. Shirvell took it to mean that males might be assigned female roommates. Or the dreaded “men and women sharing a bathroom” anti-gay meme.
You’d think Shirvell would be in favor or male/female roommates as encouraging heterosexuality, but it seems unmarried heterosexual sex may be almost as bad in his playbook. I wonder if he’s on board with O’Donnell’s masturbation stance.
I suspect that the thought of any heterosexual sex at all is horrifying to Shirvell.
I suspect that any thought at all is horrifying to Shrivell.
Aww, the blog is only for invited readers now. I wanna see the cray-cray.
His original business model centered around delivering pizza to kids on the U of M and EMU campuses…you know, the kind that were mostly just price sensitive and wanted hot pizza delivered without a delivery charge (that was another big thing). Quality never figured into it…college kids don’t care about quality!!!
Why is it, whenever one of these scumbags starts their bullshit, everybody else has to walk on eggshells around them? Get him discredited, disgraced, dissed in general, and fired. Hold him up for public ridicule. Confront him. Slam him politically and on the personal level.
Why is it that the assholes get to do what they want, but no one else can?