State attorney launches bizarre Internet war on openly gay college student

[nismaratwork]

slander and libel are not protected, but it is a civil matter. it would be up to Armstrong to file a defamation suit against Shirvell.

It is a civil matter, but it still falls under the rubric of, "conduct unbecoming a public servant"... thus termination on solid grounds. As for a civil suit, I think no one here is placing bets on Shirvell being on anything other than the sharp end of just such a lawsuit.

 

[Proton Soup]

It is a civil matter, but it still falls under the rubric of, "conduct unbecoming a public servant"... thus termination on solid grounds. As for a civil suit, I think no one here is placing bets on Shirvell being on anything other than the sharp end of just such a lawsuit.

my bet is that Armstrong does not sue him.

the AG is a political office, which makes AAG political by default. when Mike Cox is gone, Shirvell will quietly disappear also, and this will be but a fart in history.

 

[nismaratwork]

my bet is that Armstrong does not sue him.

the AG is a political office, which makes AAG political by default. when Mike Cox is gone, Shirvell will quietly disappear also, and this will be but a fart in history.

Armstrong has already retained a civil attorney beyond the PPO proceedings... I'll bet you one gram of antimatter (I have it a lockbox in my freezer), to one gram of degenerate neutron matter (we both know you have it!) that he does sue. That said, one way or another this still ends up as the fart you mentioned, on that we agree.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes it does. It would be impossible for the government to protect your freedom of religion if it couldn't decide if your religion is actually a religion.

Out of curiosity, how does the govt decide this? I've looked around briefly, and didn't find anything that helped.

 

[Gokul43201]

slander and libel are not protected, but it is a civil matter.

Michigan is one of the states with criminal defamation laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Criminal_defamation_3

 

[Hurkyl]

Out of curiosity, how does the govt decide this? I've looked around briefly, and didn't find anything that helped.

I'm curious as well.

The glossary of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf has something, at least. Paraphrasing, they have a list of things that churches look like. So for the purposes of granting tax exemption, so long as it looks like a church, its members believe in the church's alleged religion, and aren't doing illegal things, that's good enough for government work.

I imagine this is probably going to be common -- find a government document that has something to say about religious freedoms or what-not, and go check the definitions.

 

[Evo]

I'm curious as well.

The glossary of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf has something, at least. Paraphrasing, they have a list of things that churches look like. So for the purposes of granting tax exemption, so long as it looks like a church, its members believe in the church's alleged religion, and aren't doing illegal things, that's good enough for government work.

I imagine this is probably going to be common -- find a government document that has something to say about religious freedoms or what-not, and go check the definitions.

Because of the thread on the "Church of body modification" qualifying for tax exempt status, I did an extensive search for what the guidelines were that the US government used to define what is a real religion, and aside from tax exemption, there are no guidelines. So if a religion isn't tax exempt is it not a religion?

I see that Druidry has just been officially recognized as a religion in the UK. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hpEOokUuF8O9TMlsnYqW0a5Wm8qgD9IJO1B00?docId=D9IJO1B00

This is really getting off topic.

 

[Gokul43201]

Because of the thread on the "Church of body modification" qualifying for tax exempt status, I did an extensive search for what the guidelines were that the US government used to define what is a real religion, and aside from tax exemption, there are no guidelines.

That's when I searched too, and found nothing beyond the guidelines for tax exemption, nor even any mention of possible criteria. I was curious to know if Hurkyl had seen something that I hadn't since his post #103 suggested that he might have. I have no intention of dwelling on this.

Let's return to our original (boringly monolingual and culture-free) discussion.

 

[G037H3]

Let's return to our original (boringly monolingual and culture-free) discussion.

There's a reason I haven't said much.

 

[nismaratwork]

That's when I searched too, and found nothing beyond the guidelines for tax exemption, nor even any mention of possible criteria. I was curious to know if Hurkyl had seen something that I hadn't since his post #103 suggested that he might have. I have no intention of dwelling on this.

Let's return to our original (boringly monolingual and culture-free) discussion.

Isn't fun when you realize that a religion is defined, at any given moment, by nothing more than the judiciary choosing to act in accordance with precedent? I know it gives me happy tingles. It's probably one of the few good reasons to be such a relatively conservative country... less play for "religions" like Scientology becoming tax-exempt.

Anyway, didn't mean to go off-topic again, but remember that precedent is often the only guideline the judiciary has, and why each truly new case can be critical. Oh, and here's a twist... a bit of despicable culture, regarding culture, the origins of which have been muddied by modern culture, and adopted by popular culture! "when I hear the word culture, I reach for my gun." or the original german from Hanns Johst's Nazi play, "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning.", and of course Stephen Hawkings, "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my pistol."

Ahhh, fun with Nazism... it's weird.

There's a reason I haven't said much.

I can't imagine it's encroaching wisdom, manners, a sense of restraint, or newly found cognitive flexibility... so... you simply have nothing more to offer on the subject at hand?

 

[G037H3]

I can't imagine it's encroaching wisdom, manners, a sense of restraint, or newly found cognitive flexibility... so... you simply have nothing more to offer on the subject at hand?

Throw a die. :)

 

[nismaratwork]

Throw a die. :)

A 4 sided die... that brings back memories of D&D from childhood. Yep, I was that nerd.

 

[Jack21222]

A 4 sided die... that brings back memories of D&D from childhood. Yep, I was that nerd.

I think he failed his move silently skill check. That's the reason he hasn't said much, our listen skill is too low.

Is it time to lock this thread yet? I think we've been around in circles a few times.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

As the case of United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), demonstrates, the Supreme Court must look to the sincerity of a person's beliefs to help decide if those beliefs constitute a religion that deserves constitutional protection.

...In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

 

[nismaratwork]

I think he failed his move silently skill check. That's the reason he hasn't said much, our listen skill is too low.

Is it time to lock this thread yet? I think we've been around in circles a few times.

Hail brother nerd!

 

[G037H3]

A 4 sided die... that brings back memories of D&D from childhood. Yep, I was that nerd.

older than me i assume

>_>

 

[nismaratwork]

older than me i assume

>_>

I have no frame of reference, I know only my own age, and since D&D is still played... who knows? I suppose I bear the burden of culture on these poor shoulders... well, a subculture at least.

 

[G037H3]

I have no frame of reference, I know only my own age, and since D&D is still played... who knows? I suppose I bear the burden of culture on these poor shoulders... well, a subculture at least.

Well, I figure that if the Commodore 64 was available to you, you would have had a better possible hobby than D&D. :P

 

[OmCheeto]

This is really getting off topic.

Well, the Church of Latter day OmCheeto's just got together and decided that all assistant attorneys general who verbally abuse and physically stalk college students, have fallen under the right hand of Satan and should be banished from the land, lest they recruit and corrupt the younger assistant attorneys general.

We have therefore decided to stop in Michigan for several days, on our way to that 'Sanity' rally, and picket Mr. Shrivell's house, his parents house, and those who have touched his uncleanliness, until he is banished. We will of course be carrying pictures of his Mother, Father, Siblings, and close relatives, all with swastika's and Hitleresqe mustaches, until said AAG is, as we demanded, twice before, once in the above paragraph, and now twice in this, banished.

Or fired.

I'm sure I'd be fired if I tried anything remotely similar to this crap and my employer found out about it.

The Corporation for Doing Big Things announced today that they fired one of their employees, when it came to their attention that he was burning crosses in front of the house of a black family that had recently moved into his neighborhood. Asked why he would do such things, Mr. OmCheeto stated that blacks shouldn't be allowed in his neighborhood, because according to his religious beliefs, "they just shouldn't". He also criticized his employer for firing him, as he always did his job well, and only burned the crosses when not at work. The CFDBT responded that 10 of Mr. Omcheeto's 20 subordinate employee's were black, and they felt that having him around would, in their words, "violate our policies on hostile work environment, conflict of interest, respect, tolerance, etc. etc.".

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, I figure that if the Commodore 64 was available to you, you would have had a better possible hobby than D&D. :P

Ouch! As it happens it was available... I just made time for both. I will give you a solid "touche" for that, but every time you level up, get xp, and the like in a game... you're playing a kind of D&D.

Anyway...

OmCheeto: Fired... after being arrested. Very good point.

 

[turbo]

He also criticized his employer for firing him, as he always did his job well, and only burned the crosses when not at work. The CFDBT responded that 10 of Mr. Omcheeto's 20 subordinate employee's were black, and they felt that having him around would, in their words, "violate our policies on hostile work environment, conflict of interest, respect, tolerance, etc. etc.".

There may in fact be a parallel that the AG's office should consider. Michigan does not have a law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, but they do have a policy that protects gay state employees from discrimination in the workplace. Are 100% of the lawyers, clerks, secretaries, etc in the AG's office heterosexual? If not, Shrivell's off-duty activities might contribute to a "hostile" work environment.

 

[Al68]

I agree with you, but so much of this thread is focusing on the first amendment that I'm getting confused.

Me, too, especially since the main discussion is whether or not he should be fired, not whether to prosecute him or prevent his speech. Employers are free to use a person's speech as criteria to decide whether or not to employ them whether the speech is protected by the first amendment or not.

 

[Hurkyl]

Me, too, especially since the main discussion is whether or not he should be fired, not whether to prosecute him or prevent his speech.

Punishing someone for speaking in an unpopular way is a form of preventing his speech. And in this case, since it's the government who would be doing the punishing...

I'm pretty sure this point had already been made and accepted. On this particular point, the debate turned to argue whether such speech is actually protected by the first amendment and if so, whether there are greater concerns that outweigh the protection.

 

[D H]

Employers are free to use a person's speech as criteria to decide whether or not to employ them whether the speech is protected by the first amendment or not.

The government is not free to do so, and this guy is a government employee.

Punishing someone for speaking in an unpopular way is a form of preventing his speech. And in this case, since it's the government who would be doing the punishing...

I'm pretty sure this point had already been made and accepted. On this particular point, the debate turned to argue whether such speech is actually protected by the first amendment and if so, whether there are greater concerns that outweigh the protection.

Based on what people have written in this thread, and from my readings of what people elsewhere write about those who espouse almost any unpopular opinion, I would say just the opposite. The popular consensus appears to be that freedom of speech is a great idea -- so long as the people who are speaking agree with the popular consensus. That is not what freedom of speech is for. It exists to protect those who espouse unpopular (and sometimes absolutely wrong) opinions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Firing someone for what they say, and the effects it has on your institution (corp, or AG Office, whichever) isn't impinging on free speech. Free speech doesn't guarantee anything other than... free speech. Stephen Hawking could propose that black holes emit teddy bears, and the result would be that people think he's lost it... his right is still protected, but consequences are too.

The first amendment allows for a debate, but it also allows for the mass expression of disapproval and the consequences that go with it.

 

[Char. Limit]

Sue the guy for defamation and vote his boss out of office. Simple plan. Legal plan.

 

[Jasongreat]

Where did the belief that free speech means you can say whatever you want come from? According to my reading of history, the term came about after the english revolution in the mid 17th cenury, and in france after their revolution in the late 18th century, when censors lost their jobs. No longer did one have to pay a censor to print speech, hence free speech. It also seemsto me it was the reason americans hated the stamp act, since they had to pay for a stamp to put onto the paper their speech was printed on, effectively making them pay for speech. If free speech really meant that one could say whatever they believe, there could be no libel, slander, or defamation laws. The only thing that has changed is that the speaker is now responsible for his/her speech, it is up to them to govern themselves or accept the consequences their speech brings and I think the AAG is about to find that out, and IMO he should.

 

[Char. Limit]

"The government may not restrict speech"

 

[Al68]

Punishing someone for speaking in an unpopular way is a form of preventing his speech. And in this case, since it's the government who would be doing the punishing...

I'm pretty sure this point had already been made and accepted. On this particular point, the debate turned to argue whether such speech is actually protected by the first amendment and if so, whether there are greater concerns that outweigh the protection.

Nonsense. Declining to employ someone isn't "punishment". And past employment does not constitute an obligation for future employment.

I have already advocated honoring whatever employment agreement exists. Which means the guy might have to be paid severance pay. You can't use the word "punishment" if the employer honors any employment agreement made.

 

[Al68]

The government is not free to do so, and this guy is a government employee.

Yes, the government is free to make employment decisions based on their speech, their dress, their bathing habits, and many other things that we are free to do.

Their simply is no "right to be employed by government". Failure to be employed by government isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

 

[nismaratwork]

I... I...

ehem.

I agree completely with Al68.

 

[Jack21222]

I... I...

ehem.

I agree completely with Al68.

Scary, isn't it?

 

[D H]

Yes, the government is free to make employment decisions based on their speech, their dress, their bathing habits, and many other things that we are free to do.

Dress, bathing habits, maybe. Speech is a different question. The US government, and by extension state and local governments, are very restricted in this regard. The state of Michigan is a just-cause employer rather than an at-will employer. This places further restrictions on why and how the state of Michigan can fire one of its employees. Firing someone just because of he said or wrote something distasteful would be grounds for a illegal termination lawsuit.

Firing someone because he crossed the line between protected speech versus prohibited speech (e.g. speech that qualifies as sexual or racial harassment) is a different matter. Badmouthing someone on the basis of gender or race is illegal. As far as I know, the same does not yet pertain to gender preference in Michigan. Firing someone because he cross the line between protected speech versus prohibited acts is also a different matter. Harassment, stalking, or being a public nuisance could be grounds for dismissal -- but only after Chirvell is given due process.

Let's turn the tables: The Bush administration would have fired James Hansen, for example, on the spot if these protections did not exist. There have been lots and lots of civil servants who have been severe thorns in the side of various administrations. Those thorns would be easily removed were it not for those protections.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dress, bathing habits, maybe. Speech is a different question. The US government, and by extension state and local governments, are very restricted in this regard. The state of Michigan is a just-cause employer rather than an at-will employer. This places further restrictions on why and how the state of Michigan can fire one of its employees. Firing someone just because of he said or wrote something distasteful would be grounds for a illegal termination lawsuit.

Firing someone because he crossed the line between protected speech versus prohibited speech (e.g. speech that qualifies as sexual or racial harassment) is a different matter. Badmouthing someone on the basis of gender or race is illegal. As far as I know, the same does not yet pertain to gender preference in Michigan. Firing someone because he cross the line between protected speech versus prohibited acts is also a different matter. Harassment, stalking, or being a public nuisance could be grounds for dismissal -- but only after Chirvell is given due process.

Let's turn the tables: The Bush administration would have fired James Hansen, for example, on the spot if these protections did not exist. There have been lots and lots of civil servants who have been severe thorns in the side of various administrations. Those thorns would be easily removed were it not for those protections.

His free speech has exposed an inability to fulfill the requirements of his job: he cannot be considered a fair and adequate representative of the state for all of its residents. He violated the standard that a civil servant needs to act in a manner befitting his job... he's out.

The protections afforded a GS worker are still breached in this case, sorry D H.

 

[D H]

And you know this because?