The linked story is in the Washington Post, and discusses the recent issue where an employee of the State of Michigan, Andrew Shirvell, is using a personal blog to attack an openly gay student, Christopher Armstrong.
An assistant attorney general in Michigan who used his personal blog to attack the openly gay student body president at the University of Michigan has spurred debate about the right of public employees to say terrible things on their own time.
Andrew Shirvell, 30, started a blog in April in which he regularly lambasted 21-year-old Christopher Armstrong as a racist with a “radical homosexual agenda.”
The article is a good read, but in the midst of other recent headlines about five gay teems who have committed suicide because of the harassment and bullying they have received, I wonder if it is really asking the right questions. Rather than wonder if Shirvall’s speech is a matter of free speech, why isn’t anyone asking: is Shirvall is a big bully, and his actions similar to those used against younger gay teens?
Before going further with the Shirvall story, the article taught me a few other things too. for example, I didn’t realize that two of the Phelps clan (Westboro Baptist Church) are employed by the State of Kansas. I have always wondered how they can afford to go traveling across the country picketing at funerals etc. Now, I know it is Kansas tax dollars at work!
But back to the bully Shirvell. Yes, I just answered my own question. I would label Andrew Shirvell as a bully, especially considering the other individuals the Post lists in the article as it is talking about Free Speech.
Westboro Baptist Church– This is a family organization mostly, that calls itself a church, however anyone who pays attention to them may wonder if that label is very appropriate. None the less, it is their self description, and their actions grow from some odd understanding of the Holy Bible. Unlike Shirvell, WBT, and their infamous “God Hates Fags and Everyone else” tends to make a statement about society overall, rather than single out individuals of their harassment, and their actions can be understood as religious expression of their beliefs. While they do picket specific individual’s funerals, this is more about selecting a location that affords them media (and other) attention. Their message is more prophetic in an Old Testament kind of way. They are making a statement about the whole of the American culture and society, and when their attention is turned towards an individual, it really isn’t about that individual, but rather it is designed to produce as much attention for the group as possible.
Derek Fenton. Fenton was a New Jersey Transit worker who burned some pages from a Quran on the site of the proposed Islamic Center on September 11th. Â The ACLU has suggested that his firing may have violated his First Amendment rights. Like the WBC, this was not an action or actions against an individual, and could be understood as rooted in a religious belief.
Robert Henderson. Henderson was a Ste Trooper in Nebraska who was fired after he joined a group tied to the KKK. He was upset because his wife left him for a hispanic man. Unlike the other situations, there was no religious basis, but similar to them, this was not an action against a specific person.
Andrew Shirvell is quite different. His actions were directed solely and completely towards a 21 year old college student, whom he labeled as racist and pushing a radical homosexual agenda. This wasn’t a one-time thing, but an ongoing effort over about 6 months which included stalking the victim in addition to what was posted to his blog.
In the caption to the photo on the Post page, it says:
The lawyer claims that when he’s not at work, he has the right to say whatever he wants. (AP Photo/AnnArbor.com, Melanie Maxwell) MANDATORY CREDIT (Melanie Maxwell – AP)
I might actually agree with that in theory. I’m interested in understanding why this seemed to go much farther than simply what he wrote. Why did the victim need a restraining order to keep Shrivell from stalking him for example. But aside from the theoretical, why would a successful (?) 30-something attorney feel a need to attack, over and over, a 21 year old college student, if it wasn’t to bully or intimidate him? Some people feel as if the situation may be that Shirvell is a closet homosexual, and that is why he is so obcessed with this gay kid.
Anderson Cooper takes this guy down, and calls him out in a big way. Watch thie clip as well as other material here:
http://www.andrewshirvell.net/
Cooper calls Shrivell a cyber bully based on the Michigan legal code. What bothers me however, is how the Washington Post article simply treats what this guy has done as a Free Speech issue. It is almost as if the Post is editorializing on the acceptability of bullying and intimidation.
What do you think? Leave a comment and share your ideas on this story.