A story on Page 1A of Saturdays print edition of The Monroe Times sheds light on a debate over free speech that seems to be hitting a nerve in this country.
Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general in Michigan, is in the national spotlight for his blog that attacks the University of Michigans 21-year-old student body president, who is gay. Shirvell has been writing some pretty scathing things about the student, claiming the young man is a racist with a radical homosexual agenda. (The excerpts I found online were a lot worse than that. Actually, the whole scenario of this man stalking and obsessing about the leader of UMs student body is just plain weird and disturbing.)
But it raises the question: Is it appropriate for a person in Shirvells position as a public employee (and relatively high ranking one, at that) to make these comments? (Keep in mind this is beyond simply disagreeing with someones politics even the attorney general, Shirvells boss, says the blog is reprehensible and shocking. Shirvell is accused of stalking and criminally harassing this student. He is on leave now but he may be facing disciplinary action when he returns.)
What, if anything, should be done? Should the government be able to limit what public employees say in their free time?
It seems the standards vary from state to state: According to the Associated Press story, workers involved in controversial protests have kept their jobs but those in New Jersey and Nebraska have been fired. Remember the New Jersey transit worker who was fired for burning the Quaran last month? The transit department said he violated its code of ethics and trust as a state employee.
Is that limiting someones free speech, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment?
A First Amendment attorney quoted in the story made an interesting point: Just because people have the right to free speech, it doesnt mean they have the right to a public service job. But is that saying we expect people to check their First Amendment rights at the door in order to get a paycheck?
Shirvells case is a bit extreme, granted. Maybe its all a matter of degree. But its an interesting paradox that begs an important question: Where is the line between the right to free speech and inappropriate conduct?
And who gets to determine where the line is?
Andrew Shirvell, an assistant attorney general in Michigan, is in the national spotlight for his blog that attacks the University of Michigans 21-year-old student body president, who is gay. Shirvell has been writing some pretty scathing things about the student, claiming the young man is a racist with a radical homosexual agenda. (The excerpts I found online were a lot worse than that. Actually, the whole scenario of this man stalking and obsessing about the leader of UMs student body is just plain weird and disturbing.)
But it raises the question: Is it appropriate for a person in Shirvells position as a public employee (and relatively high ranking one, at that) to make these comments? (Keep in mind this is beyond simply disagreeing with someones politics even the attorney general, Shirvells boss, says the blog is reprehensible and shocking. Shirvell is accused of stalking and criminally harassing this student. He is on leave now but he may be facing disciplinary action when he returns.)
What, if anything, should be done? Should the government be able to limit what public employees say in their free time?
It seems the standards vary from state to state: According to the Associated Press story, workers involved in controversial protests have kept their jobs but those in New Jersey and Nebraska have been fired. Remember the New Jersey transit worker who was fired for burning the Quaran last month? The transit department said he violated its code of ethics and trust as a state employee.
Is that limiting someones free speech, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment?
A First Amendment attorney quoted in the story made an interesting point: Just because people have the right to free speech, it doesnt mean they have the right to a public service job. But is that saying we expect people to check their First Amendment rights at the door in order to get a paycheck?
Shirvells case is a bit extreme, granted. Maybe its all a matter of degree. But its an interesting paradox that begs an important question: Where is the line between the right to free speech and inappropriate conduct?
And who gets to determine where the line is?
