Seen this on TDS and elsewhwere.

Mental case.

His punishment should be more...severe.

Student has his feelings hurt and puts a monetary value on it to make everything go away and go back to normal. Right. Then the student, Armstrong, says that the money isn't really important as long as Shirvell apologizes. That's how it always ends up -- the person filing the lawsuit tries to retract the notion that they are filing it just to get a dollar compensation, to make them look like they're really just after an apology because someone said something about them. Welcome to the real world where people aren't nice. So someone called you a homosexual activist. Alight, move on. Someone called you a racist, tell them you aren't. Someone called you an elitist, well, you probably are. Someone called you a liar, then give them the truth. My taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding this nonsense. If the guy wasn't trying to be so vocal about homosexuality, this wouldn't even be an issue, and I don't see why he needs to be either. It's a fad that will pass in a few years.

The suit claimed Shirvell "developed a bizarre personal obsession" with Armstrong in early 2010 after claiming he was a radical homosexual activist.

It's called 'attraction'. He was attracted to Armstrong and had to ruin his life rather than face his own inner homosexual demons.

ignite ice: Student has his feelings hurt

He took it beyond just words and into physically stalking the guy staying outside his home and following him around and being banned from campus. This was all while he was working for the state AG's office.
Link

miss diminutive: The suit claimed Shirvell "developed a bizarre personal obsession" with Armstrong in early 2010 after claiming he was a radical homosexual activist.

It's called 'attraction'. He was attracted to Armstrong and had to ruin his life rather than face his own inner homosexual demons.

This was my first thought on the subject.

Fun Fact: Someone in this thread shows up on my screen in Grey 3 with the note: "This Is A Stupid Person".

Also, I like pie, and the award sounds about right to me. Although I'd have liked it better if it was accompanied with a facial tattoo reading "Moron homophobe".

Radical = someone who doesn't want any group to be second-class citizens in America.

ignite ice: Student has his feelings hurt and puts a monetary value on it to make everything go away and go back to normal. Right. Then the student, Armstrong, says that the money isn't really important as long as Shirvell apologizes. That's how it always ends up -- the person filing the lawsuit tries to retract the notion that they are filing it just to get a dollar compensation, to make them look like they're really just after an apology because someone said something about them. Welcome to the real world where people aren't nice. So someone called you a homosexual activist. Alight, move on. Someone called you a racist, tell them you aren't. Someone called you an elitist, well, you probably are. Someone called you a liar, then give them the truth. My taxpayer dollars shouldn't be funding this nonsense. If the guy wasn't trying to be so vocal about homosexuality, this wouldn't even be an issue, and I don't see why he needs to be either. It's a fad that will pass in a few years.

0/10

dahmers love zombie: Fun Fact: Someone in this thread shows up on my screen in Grey 3 with the note: "This Is A Stupid Person".

No I'm don't.

"It's just shocking that a jury would trample on my First Amendment rights the way they did," he told The News. "That's why the case should've been thrown out months ago by the judge. ... Juries give First Amendment rights short shrift."

no...sounds like the jury might have gotten this one right. you were being a jerk, abused your position to try and crush someone that you disagreed with and got slapped upside the head for it. learn from this lesson and move on with your life.

Yay for free speech! Uh, wait...

ignite ice: Student has his feelings hurt and puts a monetary value on it to make everything go away and go back to normal. Right. Then the student, Armstrong, says that the money isn't really important as long as Shirvell apologizes. That's how it always ends up -- the person filing the lawsuit tries to retract the notion that they are filing it just to get a dollar compensation, to make them look like they're really just after an apology

Not sure if stupid or troll. From TFA:

Armstrong, who filed the lawsuit in April 2011, had offered to drop the suit if Shirvell apologized and retract his statements.

BravadoGT: Yay for free speech! Uh, wait...

it goes something like this:

a. 'my opponent is wrong. he is wrong because facts facts shaded truth lie of omission facts. that's why I am right and my opponent is wrong.

b. 'my opponent is a gay commie alien who likes to anal probe runaways in his spare time. I know this because I am Republican and wear a REALLY spiffy tie.'

statement A is free speech, and thus protected. Statement B, on the other hand, is rude and quite possibly actionable in a court of law. if you defame someone, accuse them of crimes or essentially set out to systematically destroy their credibility....you can be sued for it. And a jury might decide against you.

stating disagreement is fine. destroying someone's reputation is not.

Here it is.

Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

cman: Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

If only there were a book that provided definitions for words.

cman: Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

Generally, no.

cman: Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

Besides, if a defamed individual is a public figure anyway, the plaintiff (generally, at common law) must only prove the additional element of "actual malice" to prove defamation. Here, the assistant AG created a webpage that targeted a college student. I think the college student would've been able to prove actual malice pretty easily.

Merely being a public figure doesn't mean everyone can just defame you, willy nilly.

RexTalionis: cman: Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

Generally, no.

I really have no idea how one is defined as a public figure. I know that the President is a public figure, pro-wrestlers are, but what about local newscasters?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Here it is.

Oh, that was wonderful. I don't think I've ever seen a Daily Show segment where the subject was less aware what was going on.

RexTalionis: cman: Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

Besides, if a defamed individual is a public figure anyway, the plaintiff (generally, at common law) must only prove the additional element of "actual malice" to prove defamation. Here, the assistant AG created a webpage that targeted a college student. I think the college student would've been able to prove actual malice pretty easily.

Merely being a public figure doesn't mean everyone can just defame you, willy nilly.

Laws concerning speech can confuse the hell out of me.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Here it is.

Jesus, I remember that story. This guy is a lunatic with the standard Republican Persecution Complex. He was an assistant Attorney General, for Christ's sakes.

cman: RexTalionis: cman: Quick question, does being the student body president of a University make one a public figure?

I really dont know

Generally, no.

I really have no idea how one is defined as a public figure. I know that the President is a public figure, pro-wrestlers are, but what about local newscasters?

Read more about it here. Would love to stick around and explain, but it's almost 7 and I'm hungry.

dahmers love zombie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Here it is.

Oh, that was wonderful. I don't think I've ever seen a Daily Show segment where the subject was less aware what was going on.

I got the impression he pretty much goes through life like that.

I wonder how abortion protesters get away with showing up at doctors' homes and harassing them. I wonder how the Westboro Baptist Church gets away with even worse.

I wonder why Armstrong dropped his request for a restraining order. I wonder why Shirvell was never charged with stalking.

I wonder if this award will be reduced upon appeal.

It's a wonder-full life.

BarkingUnicorn: I wonder how abortion protesters get away with showing up at doctors' homes and harassing them.

This I would also like to learn. Doctors may be important members of the community, but public figures?

cman: BarkingUnicorn: I wonder how abortion protesters get away with showing up at doctors' homes and harassing them.

This I would also like to learn. Doctors may be important members of the community, but public figures?

I'm just trying to figure out how it's legal to harass abortion doctors, but I get arrested every time I harass Tara Reid.

Is this the same Thomas More Society that's farked up every anti-evolution lawsuit of the last ten years? Yep.

I keep reading his last name as "Shrivel"

Mentat: Is this the same Thomas More Society that's farked up every anti-evolution lawsuit of the last ten years? Yep.

TMLC attorneys are Lionel Hutz levels of competent.

fusillade762: ignite ice: Student has his feelings hurt and puts a monetary value on it to make everything go away and go back to normal. Right. Then the student, Armstrong, says that the money isn't really important as long as Shirvell apologizes. That's how it always ends up -- the person filing the lawsuit tries to retract the notion that they are filing it just to get a dollar compensation, to make them look like they're really just after an apology

Not sure if stupid or troll. From TFA:

Armstrong, who filed the lawsuit in April 2011, had offered to drop the suit if Shirvell apologized and retract his statements.

He's both.

dahmers love zombie: Fun Fact: Someone in this thread shows up on my screen in Grey 3 with the note: "This Is A Stupid Person".

Also, I like pie, and the award sounds about right to me. Although I'd have liked it better if it was accompanied with a facial tattoo reading "Moron homophobe".

I have my preferences set up in "echo chamber" mode as well. That way I only have to read things from people I agree with and never have to think or learn something new from people I don't

Subby and trolls, it's not just that; he also accused the student of being a child molester. That part of his claim is what sunk any defense he had.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Here it is.

Oh, that is a priceless piece of comedy gold!

Weaver95: "It's just shocking that a jury would trample on my First Amendment rights the way they did," he told The News. "That's why the case should've been thrown out months ago by the judge. ... Juries give First Amendment rights short shrift."

no...sounds like the jury might have gotten this one right. you were being a jerk, abused your position to try and crush someone that you disagreed with and got slapped upside the head for it. learn from this lesson and move on with your life.

This. Plus Shrivell obviously doesn't have a clue about the 1st Amendment which protects against the government from preventing him to commit slander or engage in harassment. But once this hack went ahead and did what he did, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply.

This idiot is a bigot, an ass-hole, a bully, a homophobe, a butt-twang, and an all-around bad person, but guess what? I think it's unconstitutional that he should have to pay a dime.

Some Bass Playing Guy: 0/10

No, no. The trolling was top-notch until the last two sentences. What a shame.

MattyBlast: This idiot is a bigot, an ass-hole, a bully, a homophobe, a butt-twang, and an all-around bad person, but guess what? I think it's unconstitutional that he should have to pay a dime.

Again, he went on a campaign to stalk and harass the guy. This wasn't simple "free speech". This crossed so many lines.

MattyBlast: I think it's unconstitutional that he should have to pay a dime.

Does your constitution protect against slander and defamation?

*covers eyes*

Lemme guess, Republican appointee?

*Googles*

Yeppers!

it's going to be a long time before people stop being all farked up about their sexuality. my sympathy goes out to this confused rabid little DA. his life has been a lie. he would be so much happier if he found himself a nice gay bar, tipped back a couple - three Rusty Nails and just let go. meet a nice guy, do him a world of good.

/everybody gay!

The fact that this was speech against a homosexual was only tangentially relevant at best. This was abusive, stalking, harrassing behavior, perhaps also fraud and slander.

So, no First Amendment protection for you, not yours.

/suspects that if exactly the same stalkerific harrassment had been aimed at, say, a Tea Party member, many people would feel a bit differently about this issue

I'm all for free speech but not when you go nutso with a stalking/libelous blogging campaign. Doing that on state-owned equipment is an additional sign of stupidity and mental illness.

Obviously this guy is deep in the closet, and in love with the rather attractive victim.

So, are you saying that this university student is not a radical homosexual activist, racist, elitist, and liar? 'Cos I heard he was.

Weaver95: BravadoGT: Yay for free speech! Uh, wait...

it goes something like this:

a. 'my opponent is wrong. he is wrong because facts facts shaded truth lie of omission facts. that's why I am right and my opponent is wrong.

b. 'my opponent is a gay commie alien who likes to anal probe runaways in his spare time. I know this because I am Republican and wear a REALLY spiffy tie.'

statement A is free speech, and thus protected. Statement B, on the other hand, is rude and quite possibly actionable in a court of law. if you defame someone, accuse them of crimes or essentially set out to systematically destroy their credibility....you can be sued for it. And a jury might decide against you.

stating disagreement is fine. destroying someone's reputation is not.

Actually, when you go THAT overboard, statement B is free speech too.

It's like the time that Carl Sagan sued Apple for defamation and lost. It seems that Apple had code-named a new model "Carl Sagan", which was only an internal code name, was never going to be released as a product with that name. Sagan threatened to sue. Apple then changed the code name to BHA - which was known to stand for "Butt Head Astronomer". Sagan sued.

The judge essentially told Sagan to fark off, that it wasn't defamation because no one would believe that a scientist's record could seriously be impugned by calling them a butt head.

gimmegimme: cman: BarkingUnicorn: I wonder how abortion protesters get away with showing up at doctors' homes and harassing them.

This I would also like to learn. Doctors may be important members of the community, but public figures?

I'm just trying to figure out how it's legal to harass abortion doctors, but I get arrested every time I harass Tara Reid.

That is because when you harass Tara Reid you usually have your penis in your hand stroking it in a rhythmic back and forward motion.

aerojockey: The fact that this was speech against a homosexual was only tangentially relevant at best.

Shirvell, a U-M alumnus, created the Chris Armstrong Watch blog, calling him "a radical homosexual activist, racist, elitist and liar."

aerojockey: if exactly the same stalkerific harrassment had been aimed at, say, a Tea Party member, many people would feel a bit differently about this issue

Assistant TO the attorney general.

Republican repressing his innate desires for another man channels it into frothing rage and hate towards what he considers evil and unclean, gets his comeuppence, whines about it.

*sigh* Business as usual.