1. Homo Sapiens says

    Cox is either clueless about the law or a bigot looking to excuse Shirvell’s actions. The First Amendment DOES NOT protect everything that high-level public employees say off the job. In case after case, the courts have upheld firing of public employees for off-duty speech that was offensive and incompatible with the mission of the employer. Jeff Toobin pointed out on AC 360 last night that if Cox fired Shirvell and Shirvell sued, Shirvell would lose. Cox is just feigning legal ignorance because he actually agrees with everything Shirvell is saying.

  2. Jack says

    I think that there are ways of firing him consistent with the First Amendment, especially considering the disrepute and disruption that this asshole’s actions have brought onto the office.

    What I will NOT sanction, is “reviewing” the First Amendment. The First Amendment is integral to what this country stands for. I will not have this country turn into a place where one can get sued or arrested because they said something that offends someone else. Leave the First Amendment alone.

  3. MikeMick says

    So Mr. Cox, an officer of the court, whose job it is to protect the public, can also choose to stalk, harass and defame a member of the public without fear of professional censure. You are one cowardly piece of shit, just like your sociopathic buttboy Shirvell.

  4. Jon Mitchell says

    Tony X is correct – to go further: The first ammendment does not protect harassment, stalking or defamation.

  5. Dave says

    @Tony X: True, but unless you work for the government, the first amendment doesn’t enter the equation.

    When you ask a government agency to fire an employee over their free speech activities, you are implicating the first amendment.

    When his activities cross over to the criminal (stalking, harassment) or the tortious (defamation), then the government can be expected to do something. Until then, they are forbidden from doing so. This is totally in line with what the AG is saying.

    Meanwhile, @Towleroad: The question “who decides what’s right and wrong when it comes to Free Speech?” isn’t unanswerable. The answer is “no one”. If someone’s speech and speechlike activities are protected, they are protected, no matter the content. If they cross the line into the actionable, then so be it—though of course, even then it isn’t the belief or the speech itself that is actionable.

    I’m really not liking this new “free speech only includes speech we like” angle that’s been showing up on Towleroad the last couple days. The implication that one can “misuse” or “abuse” one’s first amendment rights shows a fundamental lack of understanding as to the purpose of the first amendment, and how the free market of ideas is supposed to work. It’s also just plain creepy.

    When I want kneejerk gay groupthink, I’ll hang out on Queerty, thanks.

  6. Aqua says

    I called cocks office this morning and spoke to someone named “mikhael”. Said I was calling on behalf of the Humans. asked if they condoned stalking college students who were pro co-Ed dorms.

  7. says

    Free speech is one thing, batshit crazy delusional paranoids obsessively and aggressively stalking innocent victims is quite another. Imagine being insane Andrew’s co-worker? Waiting for the inevitable day when he finally completely loses it.

  8. Carl says

    Thank God that Mike Cox will be gone in three months. He has been a truly ineffective and backwards AG for the state of MI. He is VERY conservative and has been pushing his conservative agenda since he took office. It does not suprise me that he has allowed this Assistant AG to keep his job despite the stalking and libel.

  9. Anonymous Lawyer says


    “When his activities cross over to the criminal (stalking, harassment) or the tortious (defamation), then the government can be expected to do something. Until then, they are forbidden from doing so. This is totally in line with what the AG is saying.”

    That is legally incorrect. It does not take an act that is criminal or tortious to justify a public employee’s firing under the First Amendment. It simply takes an act of speech that “impairs discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, has a detrimental impact on close working relationships . . . or impedes the performance of the speaker’s duties or interferes with the regular operation of the [government agency].” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 388 (1987). Off-duty hate speech (tortious/criminal or otherwise) certainly “impedes the performance” of the even-handed enforcement of justice. For example, in a case that was far less egregious than this, a low-level police officer’s firing was upheld where the officer anonymously distributed racist pamphlets — an act that was neither criminal nor tortious. Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2002).

  10. ScottNYC says

    I have worked for government officials in the past, and I remember signing a document that basically said anything we say in public could get us fired since it would reflect on the legislator who hired us. This was the trade-off so that the public could be assured that when I spoke at a public hearing, for example, I was not giving my personal views but rather the views of the government official I was working for.

    Aren’t there similar laws/rules/guidelines in Michigan?

  11. says

    I think that the first amendment does protect Shirvell’s right to say what he wants, period, no matter how abhorrent that may be.

    The stalking, harassment, bullying, and slander are, to me, a separate matter. This is criminal behavior. Cox’s office should be prosecuting Shirvell, not throwing up their hands and lying about how they’re blocked from action because of the 1st amendment. That’s bullcrap.

    What to do, though? Like Cox said, he’s out of office in 3 months. If he doesn’t give a shit, he doesn’t give a shit–and no amount of irate phone calls will change that.

    So where is the “Watching Shirvell” blog, eh? Anyone?

  12. patrick nyc says

    The issue is not free speech, it is his stalking Armstrong. Anderson hit the nail on the head at the end, it is all about Cox’s fear of the religious right backlash if he fires Shirvell.

  13. chrissypoo says

    Andrew Shirvell is obviously in love with Armstrong. More in likely Armstrong refused Shirvell’s advances and now Shirvell is acting like a lover scorned.

    I went to the blog and there is a video that Shirvell obviously took outside a party that Armstrong was at or hosting. The police come (probably called by Shirvell) to answer a noise complaint (probably made by Shirvell). Why is Shirvell hanging outside Armstrong’s house?

  14. phineas says

    Of course, this has nothing to do with the first amendment. It has to do with Cox not wanting to offend his gay hater base in case he want to run for another office. How low this country has fallen.

  15. RP says

    I’m sure I don’t know enough to cite laws and cases to make a legal argument, but what message are we sending our youth when someone like a state AG acknowledges something like this constitutes bullying, and at the same time that this is protected speech?

  16. Bart says

    There’s one way to deal with bullies, bully back. Whatever actions Mr. Shirvell takes can be taken against him. Especially now that he’s agreed to become a public figure by appearing on television. He’s fair game for the same actions he doles out.

    After seeing the smirky, smarmy little bitch, I doubt he could handle it.

  17. M says

    This has disaster written all over it. If I was Armstrong’s parent I would be very concerned about this and the safety of my child. These right wing nuts are CRAZY. They hide behind the first amendment while spewing forth hate and then in the blink of an eye they cross the line – and usually someone is dead. So we go from First Amendment protection and lunacy to death in the blink of an eye with no middle ground to control. Why is a grown man who is a prosecutor for the state hanging out in front of this guys house? Why is a grown man who is a state prosecutor posting to a blog hateful things about a young college student who is doing nothing wrong? You can hide behind the first amendment or state civil servant codes all day long. This is irrational behavior. This will escalate. Classic example of right wing religion induced self hatred closeted homophobia by Shirvell. If Armstrong was my relative the lawsuits and restraining orders would be flying left and right already.

  18. neverstops says

    our politicians don’t give a damn, so only solution is to fight back

    on his website there’s a Top Stories link to “Cox: Defend Traditional Marriage”

    he obviously has nothing better to do with his time

    contacts if anyone wants to call:

    AG Office:

    Lansing, MI Office
    Main Number (517) 373-1110

    Detroit, MI Office
    (313) 456-0240

    Grand Rapids, MI Office
    (616) 356-0400

  19. rjnick says

    What’s interesting about this is that you posted it right below the story about Tyler Clementi. With no less than 3 suicides this week (not to mention the cheerleader with the broken arm), it’s useful to point why Shirvell is even more loathsome and vile. Kids who are bullies grow up continuing to be bullies. It’s not hard to imagine Shirvell taunting kids in his class or stooping so low as to tape Christopher Armstrong having sex and streaming it online. Cox is just as guilty as the school administors that failed to protect Seth Walsh or Asher Brown — the example he sets says that it’s okay to bully people, and not even because he thinks it’s protected speech, but because clearly no one is going to stop you from doing it.

    Why this isn’t the number one issue on the gay agend is beyond me. What good is gay marriage or repeal of DADT if we can’t even safely get gay kids through to adulthood in the first place?

  20. Jack says


    The second half of your comment about freedom of speech is spot-on and very well said. Looks like exactly what I would have written had I not been infuriated at the suggestion that we “review the First Amendment”

  21. JTlvr says

    Cox’s argument doesn’t wash. Anyone can be fired for off-hours activity, including blogging and tweets (it’s in our company’s employment guidelines).

    I like GRANT’s idea — some in Michigan should start a Andrew Shirvell Watch blog. Use his exact tactics on him.

  22. TANK says

    Goodness…this doesn’t have anything to do with the first amendment, let alone reevaluating it. It’s just fine the way it is. This is a naked political move on the part of cox, who could justifiable fire this man right now. He protected and continues to protect him passionately in effort to pander to a radicalized bigoted electorate, because he still has political aspirations. Further, he tactictly or explicitly agrees with what that unhinged loony shirvell is doing. I think armstrong should get a gun, or some kind of protection, because the state is sanctioning and paying for his harassment that could easily escalate. The government’s protections only seem to exist for those who control it in michigan.

  23. Brett says

    Did anyone else notice the part when Tobin said to Anderson..something like “would you as a gay men sit there and allow this’ or soething to that effect.. He corrected himself and said gay people.

    Come on Andy..we love is time.

  24. Andrew says

    Should an employer be able to fire you because you engaged in “sodomy” at your house back in the 90’s? No. His free speech is protected and this is separate from his job. If he wants to spout off about the evils of homosexuals and the like then he has every right to do so. If he was doing that at work or while representing himself as a DA then that might be grounds for discipline or termination. However that hasn’t been proven yet. If Chris Armstrong wants to press charges of intimidation and stalking against this jerk then maybe the AG will fire him. Until then I support his right to say what he is saying even though I think its disgusting.

  25. rasselas says

    So…just wanted to join in the chorus here. Shirvell is pretty clearly engaging in criminal activity, but that doesn’t mean we should “review the First Amendment.” That’s nearly as batshit-crazy as Shirvell’s blog, Towleroad, and I laughed out loud when I read it. We have laws in place to protect us against unlawful speech, but that doesn’t mean we should prohibit all speech that we find personally insulting. Leave the crazy to the Tea Party, OK? Otherwise I’ll need to start getting my gay-flavored news elsewhere.

  26. TANK says

    Yet another idiot who does not understand the first amendment heard from–that being andrew. The first amendment does not give you the right to stalk, harass, slander and libel anyone you want. The first amendment similarly does not enable you, if you were a government employee, to use it as a non-government employee can–that is, you’re free to say what you want as a government employee just as the government is free to terminate your employment. He has clearly violated the conduct codes of an assistant attorney general, and has brought shame to that department, making it a total joke…in fact, a branch of the tea party.

  27. Jack says


    You’re the idiot here (surprise, surprise). Do you have ANY idea what you need to prove to bring a claim for defamation? Or how extraordinarily difficult it is? Especially considering that Armstrong is likely considered a public person, and the things being said by Shirvell could be considered matters of public concern?

    Let me guess, you also thought that Obama had a defamation suit against everyone that said he was born in Kenya or is Muslim?

    Stop talking out of your ass. There are definitely legal ways in which Shirvell could be canned, but don’t go spouting like you know the First Amendment.

  28. Andrew says

    We have laws in this country, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I don’t believe in vigilante justice. Until charges are brought against him for Harassment and intimidation and those charges are proven in a court of law, its merely him exercising his free speech rights. All the accounts are speculation nothing has been proven yet. Side note I hate sharing a name with someone who is a douche.

  29. TANK says

    Jack, you don’t know jack. I’m sure you think it’s a violation of an individual’s free speech rights when a corporation fires that person for creating a website with inflammatory, negative and false statements about it, too. So long as it’s done on his non work related time, no less. It is not. You have a child’s understanding of the constitution, and no understanding of this particular case. This is not a free speech issue.

  30. TANK says

    Andrew, that is simply not what this is about. If you visited the website, and new what shirvell has said and continues to say about armstrong, this is conduct unbecoming (and cox admitted that it constitutes bullying) of a assistant attorney general. Your entire point is rendered null because you’re confusing this with a first amendment issue, which it isn’t. Shirvell is free to post these obscenities on his own time, providing a documented record for a defemation suit armstrong would be within his rights to file, and the AG’s office is free to terminate his employment. It’s not freedom for some, as you’d have it.

    And jack’s point rests on completely disregarding shirvell’s antics, it would seem…there’s a documented record of defamation.

  31. Andrew says

    I just disagree with the law then. The right of an employer to terminate you because they disagree with what you are saying. Of course if it is defamation of character, slander, harassment then I agree that he should be fired. Until it is proven in court that is the case then I don’t think the AG office should fire him. Perhaps they could put him on leave pending an investigation, but I still believe that you have the right to say what you want short of harassment, slander, or threats. But again that should only be determined in court not by your boss. Of course the boss can fire him and then he could sue in court for wrongful termination. My main point is you are innocent until proven guilty.

  32. TANK says

    You disagree with what law or laws? The first amendment? Anti-stalking laws, anti-bullying laws, anti-defamation laws, or termination laws that grant corporations and government bodies the right to fire people who engage in behaviors that jeopardize the public’s faith in the impartiality of government officials or the private company’s name (or, barring legal discrimination, any reason at all)? Look, constitutional freedoms don’t exist just to protect people who abuse them, or say things that you agree with, or that you FEEL is right. Government officials who represent the AG’s office in michigan are held to a higher standard of decorum than your average booze swillin’ gun nut upper peninsula survivalist. That’s because they are expected to do their jobs impartially, and effectively…and this without doubt demonstrates that he is incapable of doing that for michigan’s lgbt citizens. And this is stalking. He doesn’t need to be convicted of any crime for his termination to be justified here, and no one really does…and that’s a part of living in a free society which grants freedom to employers and employees, alike.

    Look, I’m sure you’re what, fourteen? Twelve? That’s no excuse for stupidity or ignorance…at least it wasn’t when I was your age. I just don’t see any argument from you…

  33. Steve Collins says

    The 1st Amendment is not absolute, and never has been. When it was written, its authors specifically stated that it did not protect the right of someone to scream ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater.

  34. says

    Did Anyone else catch that the AG clearly stated what Armstrong would have to do to get Shirvell fired? Specifically, he said, that “if he were to file for and have granted an order of protection…” then he would be able to do something about Shirvell.

    So, Armstrong, file for an order of protection!

    – Cameron

  35. JOE 2 says

    If Shirvell had set up a blog slandering and demonizing an African-American person who advocated for ending the income disparity between blacks and whites, he would have been fired lickety-split.

  36. richT says

    Can you imagine if Shirvell’s blog had been racist instead of homophobic and his target had been a student of color? He would be fired immediately. This is yet another example of homophobia not only being tolerated in this country…but rewarded.

  37. Andrew says

    My goodness Tank all this anger? I don’t think we are differing on this issue, my main concern is “when” he can be fired. I disagree with an employer being able to fire anyone for speaking their minds unless its threats, harassment, or slander, and only when that is PROVED in a court of law to be true should the employer have the right to fire the employee. I don’t agree with any law that would allow a company to fire an employee simply because that employees actions outside of work “COULD” show it in a bad light. It would have to prove in a court of law that this is the case. You say there is all this evidence that is slandering Mr. Armstrong and there very well could be evidence and Andrew could be caught red handed but that is not for the employer to decide that is for the courts to decide whether he broke the law or didn’t. I agree with laws that protect people from slander and from harassment so I know the 1st Amendment is not finite, there are some times when a person’s personal liberties come before another’s right to free speech. I am just arguing that its all speculation until its proven in a court of law.

  38. Jack says

    Tank, you are an imbecile, plain and clear. What does a corporation have ANYTHING to do with this?

    When the government is your employer, there are SIGNIFICANT First Amendment issues. Go read some Supreme Court decisions: start with Connick v Myers, Pickering v. Board, and Garcetti v Ceballos.

    The fact that you think you know anything about what the Constitution means is laughable. Have you gone through law school, sat for the bar, and been in practice involving the First Amendment? Cause I have.

    Put up or shut up, you pathetic internet troll.

  39. Zlick says

    Well, AG Cox pretty much invited Armstrong to file for a restraining order or file a libel suit.

    I’m not sure Armstrong would be wise to do either of those. He may, for all I know, just want this whole thing to blow over. It’s harder to prove libel than you might think, especially if – as alluded to in a post above – Armstrong has made himself at least a quasi-public figure. Even a restraining order might be tough. I’m not sure if one instance of hanging out outside a house during a party would cut it.

    What I’m more interested in is the concept of cyber bullying or stalking. If there weren’t the videos taken outside Armstrong’s house, would stalking even be considered? I’m not sure one or two such incidents constitute real stalking – which I take to be a much more serious and concentrated effort to follow the person around from place to place.

    Similarly, while the blog is horrendous – where does internet speech cross the line to cyber bullying? I’m just not sure where that line is. If the speech is not directed at the person, but merely about the person, how is that bullying as opposed to libel?

    Questions for the internet age.

  40. TANK says

    “Tank, you are an imbecile, plain and clear.”

    Wah wah wah, I disagree with you, and can provide a better argument. Check your stupidity before I really start to lay down the law with regard to reductio ad absurdems.

    “What does a corporation have ANYTHING to do with this?”

    Well, I think that a corporate entity, or company one works for is a reasonable example of a similar employer/ employee dynamic that we have here, consider that’s what the issue is. I didn’t think I’d have to explain that to you, but wonders never cease from many towleroad commenters. But you’re right with respect where the parallel breaks down. Government employees, and especially employees of the AG’s office, are held to much more stringent guidelines of public decorum considering who they represent and what their job description entails, than an arby’s employee. If anything, this guy’s misbehavior as a poor reflection on the AG’s office in michigan, meets a much higher bar for dismissal under misconduct guidelines than an employee at denny’s talkin’ smack after work about the company.

    “When the government is your employer, there are SIGNIFICANT First Amendment issues.”

    Not here, dipshit. You have yet to establish that. This has nothing at all to do with the first amendment. The AG’s office is free to fire him just as he’s free to spout his obscenities online.

    “Go read some Supreme Court decisions: start with Connick v Myers, Pickering v. Board, and Garcetti v Ceballos.”

    From connick v. myers:

    “Pickering, its antecedents and progeny, lead us to conclude that if Myers’ questionnaire cannot be fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern, it is unnecessary for us to scrutinize the reasons for her discharge. When employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment. Perhaps the government employer’s dismissal of the worker may not be fair, but ordinary dismissals from government service which violate no fixed tenure or applicable statute or regulation are not subject to judicial review even if the reasons for the dismissal are alleged to be mistaken or unreasonable.”

    Now how exactly does that indicate that shrivell’s first amendment rights would be violated by his termination? LOL!

    “The fact that you think you know anything about what the Constitution means is laughable. Have you gone through law school, sat for the bar, and been in practice involving the First Amendment? Cause I have.”

    I am not star jones, and I am not a lawyer, thankfully. It’s beneath me…but for someone who has, and is arguing that there are first amendment grounds to continue shrivell’s employment, echoing the justification given by cox, you didn’t learn much, didja?

    “Put up or shut up, you pathetic internet troll.”


  41. Jack says


    Given that Armstrong is arguably a “public figure,” he would have to prove both that the statements Shirvell were false, and that Shirvell made them knowing their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth (“malice”).

    Much of what Shirvell said is opinion, and thus cannot be proven or disproven. Basically, Armstrong would have one hell of a problem trying to win a defamation suit.

  42. Mykelb says

    What the Asst AG did was clearly a violation of ethics rules and as such, he should be censured for it and most likely he should be put on administrative leave until the end of his term. This man has no business being in law enforcement.

  43. Jack says


    You never cease to amaze me. You say that you can provide a “better argument,” but your posts are filled with nothing but conclusory statements.

    It’s good that you can find some website about Connick, not read the whole decision, and paste a quote that doesn’t prove your point, and claim victory. It’s really great.

    The only problem is that you overlooked the words “matter of public concern.” Go read all three of those opinions, and the cases following them establishing government employee speech jurisprudence, and then come back when you know SLIGHTLY more than nothing.

    Think what you will about lawyers, but the people I’ve helped and the rights I’ve protected are worth far more than your pitiful existence could ever hope for.

    The only person you “pwn” is yourself.

  44. TANK says

    But it does prove my point that the scotus provides reasoning that shrivell’s hate blog offers no reasonable political, social, or other concern to community, and is, by cox’s admittance, bullying, that government employees enjoy wide lattitude in managing their offices. If it’s your contention that shrivell’s calumnies fall within the parameters of public concern, you’re clearly pushin’ an agenda that even cox’s words (though not actions) contradict…you simply can’t defend shrivell’s blog as voicing legitimate public concern and be taken seriously. But he has every right to post his hate speech, just as the AG’s office has every right to terminate his employment; firmly placing this outside of the jurisdiction of the first amendment. What does that imply? Well…seems to imply that cox would be well within his rights to can his ass.

    And I will say whatever I want about lawyers. With few exceptions, not a particularly bright group of people. I have family members who are lawyers, and I got an extremely high score on the lsats when I was considering becoming one…but then I realized how miserable the profession is. Oh, and they’re much smarter than you.

  45. mcNnyc says

    Does anyone know of a gay U of Michigan alumni org or that could contact their university p
    office to add pressure?
    I know two of my cousins both straight who I link them onto this and they were furious.
    I called the AG office and I told them I would be afraid to recommend any student enroll in a Michigan College when something like this is allowed to happen.

  46. Jack says


    Reading comprehension fail. If you’ve read, you’ll note that I said that the disrepute and disruption that Shirvell’s actions brought to the office would likely legally justify his firing. But that does NOT mean that this is not a First Amendment issue. It means that Shirvell might lose. But to say that there is no First Amendment issue here is ridiculous, and flat-out stupid.

    Let me guess, you got a 190? The claim that you took the LSAT (note, anyone that has actually taken the test laughs when people refer to it in the plural), is dubious at best.

    Like I said, the work I do makes far more of a difference in this country than anything your fuckfacery could ever hope to. Your thoughts on lawyers mean nothing.

  47. TANK says

    Ummm, I scored a 172 with no prep, and, I’m pretty sure, a hangover–and that’s out of 180, right? While ago. I couldn’t care less about what lawyers laugh at or don’t…I have very little respect for the profession, or the intelligence of your average lawyer…because of inferior minds like yours who are members. But, my sister’s a lawyer, and she’s much smarter than you have proven yourself to be.

    This isn’t a first amendment issue, and until you provide a compelling argument that isn’t simply ad hom or a reference to case law that contradicts your assertions, I see no reason to believe otherwise, and have provided reasoning as to why it’s not.

  48. Zlick says

    Sorry to interrupt the Tank and Jack show, but a report on Cooper’s website says that Armstrong has filed for a restraining order. Guess the ball’s back in Cox’s court now.

    (And no, I didn’t purposely use Cox and balls in a sentence just because this is a gay blog.)

  49. FunMe says

    There are 2 laws laws set by the federal government that the student can use in a lawsuit against that homophobe:

    Title V of this bill was named Obscene Or Harassing Use Of Telecommunications Facilities Under The Communications Act Of 1934. Section. 501 of this new bill named it the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and proposed to amend the Communications Act to make illegal the use of a telecommunications device (i.e. including Internet technology) that:
    makes, creates, or solicits, and initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person

    2. USC 18: 41 – Extortion and Threats
    § 875. Interstate communications
    (c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

  50. FunMe says


    I reported him under “Hate against a protected group” Hate or violence: “While Blogger values and safeguards political and social commentary, material that promotes hatred toward groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity is not allowed on Blogger.”

  51. TANK says

    Okay, I’ve had it with the condescending and supersillyous attacks upon my well-thought out legal reasoning by some of you bitter old drama queens who profess to be lawyers. All right, I never attended law school, although I very well could have due to my fabulous scores on the LSATS (I even got two red stars PLUS a golden palm on my final score), but I did do some clerking for a certain Supreme Court justice way back when. Does the name Mrs. Justice Kimba Wood mean anything to you Bolt Hall rejects?! So now, who looks like an idiot, and who looks like a truly insightful and colorful legal scholar in the amateur tradition of Rumple of the Bailey? I rest my case, gentlemen, ladies, and assorted Internet trolls.

  52. says

    I wrote the First Amendment which was intended to ensure free speech for citizens against the government. Defamation is against the law as are slander and libel. Do not couch them as a First Amendment right.