http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/shirvell.html
"...Michigan's PrideSource has identified a participant at a May counter-protest of the Westboro Baptist Church over their picket of a production of The Laramie Project in May, as Andrew Shirvell..."
Printable View
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/shirvell.html
"...Michigan's PrideSource has identified a participant at a May counter-protest of the Westboro Baptist Church over their picket of a production of The Laramie Project in May, as Andrew Shirvell..."
Should we expect any different from a Mike Cox employee?Quote:
Originally Posted by maxx
It looks as though Cox is officially opposed to this employee's viewpoint and the employee has been warned without effect. Cox is treading the employee freedom of speech tightrope here. From my years of experience investigating employee employer issues, I have seen many approaches that could solve this problem without abridging freedom of speech.
Since this guy doesn't seem demonstrate the balance expected from a person in his position, so his work performance needs to be especially monitored to prevent his biases from impacting his work.
Wouldn't Mike Cox be the correct person issue an official opinion on balancing Freedom of Speech with state employment responsibilities? Other state personnel directors dealing with similar issues want to know.
Would mike cox be 'walking a tight rope' if this guy was targeting a person that wasn't gay? Say his blog targeted the first black UM student body president and repeatedly called that person a nigger. Would there even be a moment's hesitation on bringing the axe down? Would anyone think he could adequately carry out his duties at the AG holding such beliefs and publishing such diatribes? Have you read that blog, the guy is unhinged. Can someone with such deep seeded hatred of a segemetn of the state's population EVER prevent those biases from entering their work? Lets keep in mind, this guy went out and set up a blog to harass a college kid. Gay, straight, black, or purple, to do that that is just insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by gazhekwe
Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right, freedom from consequences of exercising that right is not.
There have been cases where the employee prevailed in instances like this. The key is whether or not the site contains speech contrary to the person's oath of office. As a state employee, he has a duty to uphold state law. Of course, state law currently does not speak to this issue as it does to the issue of race, gender, age, national origin, and other forms of discrimination. Can Cox continue to balance precariously or must he carve out a position on this hotly disputed issue? Legislators have repeatedly refused to add gender preference issues to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.