Chris Armstrong, the openly gay president of the University of Michigan Student Assembly, offered an oblique response Monday night to an inflammatory blog, Chris Armstrong Watch, that for the past five months has accused him of using his office to further a “radical homosexual agenda” at the state’s flagship campus. Andrew Shirvell, a Michigan assistant attorney general who is the blog’s author, has called Mr. Armstrong “Satan’s representative on the student assembly” and attacked him for promoting gender-neutral student housing on the campus. Mike Cox, Michigan’s attorney general, recently chastised Mr. Shirvell, a Michigan alumnus, for his “immaturity and lack of judgment” but has not otherwise commented on the issue.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
9 Responses to Gay Student Leader at Michigan Responds to Blog Attacks by State Official
d_marie - September 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm
I wonder whether Mr. Shirvell’s language violates Blogger’s (Google’s) terms on hate-speech. See: http://www.blogger.com/content.g.
11223140 - September 29, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Mike Cox has shown the type of (non) leadership that we Michiganders have come to expect of him as this despicable, inaccurate, and slanderous attack has been carried out by one of his underlings during that person’s “private time.” It is pretty interesting to observe…gee, I sure hope Mr. Cox never “chastises” me, I don’t know if I could take it.
cu_alum - September 29, 2010 at 5:16 pm
In response to #2:Shirvell has First Amendment rights to say what he wants on his own time, just like anyone else. It would be unconstitutional for the state to punish him in any way for this. Mike Cox’s job is to enforce the constitution, not to violate it.
11223435 - September 29, 2010 at 5:25 pm
#3, Check the Garcetti precedent for dumping public employees who undertake this sort of free-speech libel and slander and criticism on their own time. Interestingly, the Garcetti case involved an assistant district attorney, I believe.Free speech is no longer an absolute right in this country, as a very clear string of Supreme Court decisions have shown.
thomaslawrencelong - September 29, 2010 at 5:36 pm
The First Amendment, if you will take time to read it and to review case law, protects us from prior restraint by government authorities that would prevent speech. After the fact, the First Amendment generally does not protect us from consequences (e.g. employment discipline) of free speech. It’s a distinction generally lost on most Americans.
cu_alum - September 29, 2010 at 5:46 pm
To #4:There is a big difference between libel and slander on the one hand and criticism on the other. The latter is protected, but the former are not. Note that both libel and slander involve false statements of fact. Statements of opinion don’t qualify. Do you have any evidence that Shirvell has libeled or slandered Mr. Armstrong?To #5:You’re right that the government can’t restrain our speech in advance, but it also can’t punish us for our speech after the fact unless that speech falls within some limited exceptions. I have no evidence that any of those exceptions apply here. Do you?As to your comment about “employment discipline”: The constitution constrains the government, not private entities. Private employers have more right to punish speech than do public employers. The Michigan Attorney General’s office is a public employer and thus part of the government. It has to obey the constitution.
22067030 - September 29, 2010 at 9:48 pm
This may sound paternalistic but…Chris Armstrong is a college student and Mr. Shirvell and Mr. Cox are state officials who are in theory — and no doubt would claim to be in fact — public servants. What on Earth do they think they are doing, targeting a college student? If they want to pick on LGBT people, I’m sure there are plenty of celebrities who would be delighted with the publicity.Meanwhile, I defend Mr. Shirvell’s and Mr. Cox’s right to speak, but also the right of the Michigan voters to take appropriate action at the next election.As for the Garcetti decision, that is just the another example of the current Supreme Court’s contempt for the constitution, for the law, and for the public. And I can’t help noticing that I am complaining about despicable lawyers…
jffoster - September 29, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Michigan voters may decide that “appropriate action” is to return the AG and his assistant to office with a landslide.
cu_alum - September 30, 2010 at 12:35 am
To #7 and #8:Mr. Cox himself is not involved. He has no authority to control what his deputies do on their own time, and he is legally forbidden to discipline them for conduct protected by the First Amendment. No matter how strongly he disapproves of what his personnel say or write when they are off duty, he can’t do anything about it. He should not be penalized for obeying the law instead of violating. That people don’t realize firing Shirvell would be illegal does not mean Cox should do it.