Belanger Park River Rouge
ON THIS DATE IN DETROIT HISTORY - DOWNTOWN PONTIAC »



Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Default One Helluva Price for Free Speech

    I'm guessing the jury carefully calculated what Councilor Shirvell is expected to earn during his lifetime...because it seems they wanted to send a message to him and those like him.

    http://www.freep.com/article/2012081...text|FRONTPAGE


    Don't stalk. Don't mercilessly harangue an individual on the internet. Don't start any pestering threads intended on maligning someone. Even if they deserve it.

    I may even have to give up on Kwhyme some day...sigh.


    Cheers!

  2. #2

    Default

    You have the right to free speech. if that turns into the kind of vile, harassing crap Shirvell did, or if you stir up a riot, or threaten harm, etc. etc., the courts have held that you crossed a line since the founding of the republic

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rb336 View Post
    You have the right to free speech. if that turns into the kind of vile, harassing crap Shirvell did, or if you stir up a riot, or threaten harm, etc. etc., the courts have held that you crossed a line since the founding of the republic
    I'm not sure how to feel about this case. I don't share either of their viewpoints on the subject of homosexuality, but did Shirvell do anything that was criminally illegal? Was he charged or convicted for threatening to harm Mr Armstrong or charged with inciting a riot or stalking?

    This is more of a defamation of character civil issue, and for me these types of lawsuits always seem to border on the edge of limiting free speech when what was said or published are opinions as opposed to falsehoods. I can totally understand the verdict if Shirvell had publicly accused Armstrong of acts or words that were blatantly false, but from what I have read of the issue his words were obviously hateful, degrading and objectionable but for the most part was just his warped opinions of the guy.

  4. #4

    Default

    Shirvell publicly accused Armstrong of trying to corrupt the student body at U of M by espousing a radical gay agenda.

  5. #5

    Default

    There's more information in today's article: Andrew Shirvell ordered to pay $4.5 million for blog attacks on U-M student

    I found this comical:
    Shirvell, who is unemployed and acted as his own attorney, said he'll appeal the case all the way to the Supreme Court if he has to, claiming it will be a "landmark" First Amendment case....

    Shirvell called only one witness during the trial -- himself....

    "Did you ever approach Mr. Armstrong?" he asked himself.

    "No, I did not."

    "Did you ever contact Mr. Armstrong?"

    "No, I did not."...

    "Mr. Shirvell, did you believe everything you wrote at the time was true?" he asked himself.

    "Yes, I did. I still believe it is true."
    But $4.5 million?! Why so much?

  6. #6

    Default

    Here ya go, what Shirvell did that the jury did not like:

    Armstrong presented compelling evidence in the case that accused Shirvell of starting a blog called “The Chris Armstrong Watch”, which accused Armstrong of influencing minors with alcohol and trying to turn others homosexual. According to ABCnew.go.com Shirvell blogged that Armstrong is a “radical homosexual activist, racist, elitist and liar.” Shirvell would also blog about Armstrong participating in sexual acts on children’s playgrounds, churches and host[ing] gay orgies sessions. Deborah Gordon, Armstrong’s attorney, told ABC that Shirvell showed up at Armstrong’s house several times and one time, called the police to report a party Armstrong attended then Shirvell blogged that the police raided a sex party that went out of control. That scene is in the video section of this page.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/andr...-pay-the-price

  7. #7

    Default

    If you put Paul Ryan's hair on Shirvell he'd be a dead ringer for Pee Wee Hermon.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gazhekwe View Post
    Here ya go, what Shirvell did that the jury did not like:

    Armstrong presented compelling evidence in the case that accused Shirvell of starting a blog called “The Chris Armstrong Watch”, which accused Armstrong of influencing minors with alcohol and trying to turn others homosexual. According to ABCnew.go.com Shirvell blogged that Armstrong is a “radical homosexual activist, racist, elitist and liar.” Shirvell would also blog about Armstrong participating in sexual acts on children’s playgrounds, churches and host[ing] gay orgies sessions. Deborah Gordon, Armstrong’s attorney, told ABC that Shirvell showed up at Armstrong’s house several times and one time, called the police to report a party Armstrong attended then Shirvell blogged that the police raided a sex party that went out of control. That scene is in the video section of this page.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/andr...-pay-the-price
    the definition of libel with malice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.