Michigan AG Mike Cox: Andrew Shirvell 'Clearly A Bully,' But Protected By First Amendment
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox appeared on Anderson Cooper's show last night to defend Andrew Shirvell, his staffer who maintains an exceedingly homophobic blog about the University of Michigan's openly gay student body president, Chris Armstrong.
Though Cox admitted Shirvell's actions are "unbecoming" and that he's "clearly a bully," the outgoing Attorney General insisted Shirvell's well within his Constitutional rights: "Here in America, we have this thing called the First Amendment, which allows people to express what they think and -- and -- and engage in political and social speech."He did point out, however, that if Armstrong were to receive a restraining order of some sort, then perhaps Shirvell could, in theory, be reprimanded.
"If a personal protection order was sought by Mr. Armstrong and granted in the Michigan civil service or a disciplinary code," said the Attorney General, "we could start looking at things in terms of perhaps sending to an employee assistance program."
In the end, Cox, who lost his gubernatorial bid to Republican Rick Snyder, threw up his hands about the entire affair, and said, "The reality is, I'm out of office in three months. I have a duty to defend the Michigan Constitution. I have a duty to defend the Michigan civil service rules, even at those times when I don't like it."
While Cox would like to forget the Shirvell scandal, our nation as a whole needs to address it and review the First Amendment. It's not just a freedom of speech. It's a responsibility, we're lucky to have it and people should use it wisely.
People like Shirvell, the unidentified anti-gay blogger from Sen. Saxby Chambliss' office, and homophobic preacher Fred Phelps, whose own free speech brouhaha heads to the Supreme Court next week, misuse and waste their First Amendment rights on ugliness and hate. But of course they all believe otherwise, raising the ultimate, unanswerable question: who decides what's right and wrong when it comes to Free Speech?
Watch Cooper and Cox's exchange, AFTER THE JUMP.
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.
Posted by: Bart | Sep 30, 2010 12:04:50 PM
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.
Posted by: M | Sep 30, 2010 12:06:38 PM
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
Posted by: neverstops | Sep 30, 2010 12:10:24 PM
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?
Posted by: rjnick | Sep 30, 2010 12:10:28 PM
@Dave:
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"
Posted by: Jack | Sep 30, 2010 12:24:21 PM
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.
Posted by: JTlvr | Sep 30, 2010 12:29:04 PM
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.
Posted by: TANK | Sep 30, 2010 12:37:35 PM
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 you.it is time.
Posted by: Brett | Sep 30, 2010 12:42:54 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrew | Sep 30, 2010 12:44:23 PM
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.
Posted by: rasselas | Sep 30, 2010 12:52:00 PM
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.
Posted by: TANK | Sep 30, 2010 12:52:42 PM
Tank:
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.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 30, 2010 12:58:47 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrew | Sep 30, 2010 12:59:57 PM
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.
Posted by: TANK | Sep 30, 2010 1:05:49 PM
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.
Posted by: TANK | Sep 30, 2010 1:10:22 PM
If he had said the same thing about Cox he'd be out in a flash.
Posted by: anon | Sep 30, 2010 1:35:17 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrew | Sep 30, 2010 1:59:00 PM
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...
Posted by: TANK | Sep 30, 2010 2:15:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Steve Collins | Sep 30, 2010 2:26:24 PM
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
Posted by: Cameron Johnson | Sep 30, 2010 2:38:00 PM
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.
Posted by: JOE 2 | Sep 30, 2010 2:40:31 PM
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.
Posted by: richT | Sep 30, 2010 2:51:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Andrew | Sep 30, 2010 2:57:49 PM
http://shirvellisgay.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Alex | Sep 30, 2010 2:58:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 30, 2010 3:00:12 PM