Originally posted by inimalist
have you watched the video? satan's pawn is one of the least offensive things this fellow is being called.
Yes and it seems the most offensive or at least intended to be the most offensive.
Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, Nazi and Racist are, while not definitively defined, much easier cases to prove. As in, they are things that there is no evidence this man has any association with.
Hyperbole for the sake of a "political" point (BTW, that's in the video), Nazi and racist in actions/ideals (that's how he justifies it), etc. Still, for Andrew, Pawn of Satan is probably the most offensive and something he genuinely means. Do you think Peach cries herself to sleep every time someone calls her a Nazi for closing a thread that was inappropriately created? His nazi comments are very non-sequitor to begin with. They are lame as hell. In fact, I have no idea where this ultra-conservative idea came from that homsexuals are racist nazis...but it is definitely not the first time I've heard it (I live in Oklahoma...
)
Originally posted by inimalist
Further, "satan's pawn" has a damaging effect on his stance in the community especially among christians who might accidently find this blog. It becomes a defimation suit at that point, given the onus would be on Shirvel to prove his assertion, for which there would be no judicially reliable evidence.
If you're familiar with the ultra-conservative types, even if a person does not outwardly acknowledge or even try to do the work of Satan, that doesn't mean that aren't doing the work of Satan to the conservatard.
And, if there are any ultra-conservative Christians out there that come across his blog, they'd agree with Andrew quite swiftly. Even if they didn't run across the blog and heard of the fella, they'd still say shit like, "That young man is doing the work of the devil." You know how many times I've heard that last line?
And, yeah, there would be "evidence" in that he can cite his scriptures. Then if they try to push it further, he can counter sue for an infringement on his political and religious speech.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, let me get this straight, you don't think someone's behaviour becomes unbecomming of holding a public office until they overtly violate the law on work time?
He's not elected, he's appointed. Let's get that clear.
Also, he's fine. And, let's get another thing clear: he's not doing ANYTHING illegal. Your wording is a bit off, there.
And, since when is hate becoming of anyone from anywhere? That's a slippery slope and I'll cover that at the end.
Originally posted by inimalist
you do realize that nobody gives 2 shits that this moron is saying what he is, but rather that he is doing so while holding an office WHICH IS DIRECTLY RESPOSIBLE FOR THE EQUAL DISSEMINATION OF JUSTICE TO THE PUBLIC.
We need to get another thing clear:
As soon as his hate spills over into his job (You know, a case he is working on is not handled properly, not anything else that you are trying to think of which doesn't apply), his boss has probable cause to fire him. There's also the problem of assigning lawyers to cases: what kind of dumbass boss would you have to be to assign Andrew to a case covering the prosecution of a homosexual? If the DA is short-handed and Andrew is the only option, Andrew can either chose to be insubordinate and lose his job OR he can do standard quality work on that case and keep his job. Just take a guess at which option that a**hole would take?
Originally posted by inimalist
a) his own boss, the attorney general, said he was bullying this man using technology.
Then why hasn't he fired him or prosecuted him (he's the ****in' DA...you can do that, n'stuff)? Oh, that's right, because he's not actually bullying him in any illegal way.
Originally posted by inimalist
b) the interviews clearly state that he engages in more than just keeping a single blog. While the blog is the main thing, it is even admitted by Shirvel himself that he is posting slanderous things about this student on places other than his blog (he says message boards).
I did not see that in the video. I watched the whole thing. Unless Andrew is posting on the student's websites/facebook page, it is not cyber bullying. He has to follow him around to his own "stomping grounds" and harass him there in order for it to be cyber bullying. Mr. Cooper took that cyber bullying quotes out of context, which is something news reporters do both ignorantly and willfully. If he posts something on a message board that that dude participates in and someone there, including the student, asks him to stop, that's the end. If he continues, that's harassment and the cyber bullying law can be applied.
Originally posted by inimalist
c) religious or political speech does not protect you from litigation. Else all criminal conspiracies would never get charged. Further, freedom of speech does not apply to crime.
Glad we cleared up that it is not criminal, then, right? (that was done several posts ago)
And what you're talking about, conspiracy to commit a criminal offense, is certainly not the case. You've got only cyber bullying and, at that, it's a very weak argument.
Originally posted by inimalist
d) you seem to, again, be (deliberatly?) confusing the idea that Shirvel commited illegal action with the fact that he is being accuesed of commiting action unbecomming of someone employed in the office of the autourney general.
Yet, you've harped on the illegality of his actions multiple times, now.
And you've missed the point that his actions must be illegal or unethical (towards cases he is working on) when they are done outside of the office. If he leaves work completely out of his actions, there is no legal leg to stand on. Yes, firing an employee is a legal matter and there's shit loads of legislation in each state and at the federal level. You think that Andrew and his boss haven't thought about that? (they are both lawyers)
Originally posted by inimalist
e) he used loop-holes in legislation that doesn't exist?
He is doing something illegal that isn't protected by the US constitution, is not legally protected from his state's employment laws, and his boss is going to fire him based on legally defined ethics behavior for government employees?
Originally posted by inimalist
a) the supreme court of your country thinks differently
The Supreme Court of my country does not.
Originally posted by inimalist
b) this isn't a freedom of speech issue, nobody wants to deny him the right to be a biggot, they are just saying he can't hold an office representing the concept of equality before the law while behaving in a way that it is indisputable he will not provide that service to homosexuals
Freedom of Speech is the issue. And until he actually does something that is as you describe, while at work, then you have a legal leg to stand on. It hasn't happened and it most likely won't happen.
Originally posted by inimalist
c) even if this were a freedom of speech issue, there is at least an argument that his freedom of speech does not superceed the right of homosexuals to get fair representation by the state
That's rather irrelevant considering no such situation has come up. Don't you think his boss would love to fire him over such a thing? (If I were the DA, I would look for any reason to fire him..and as a lawyer, I would certainly be very careful about it.)
Originally posted by inimalist
d) to break this down into barn yard analogies, you are arguing that the fox should indeed be allowed to gurad the chicken coop, because it is against the rights of the fox to refues him employment until after he has, predictably (in fact, with complete foreknowledge of how foxes behave in situations with chickens), murdered the chickens.
Your analogy fails in that your chickens in the coop would equate to every last person prosecuted would have to be a homosexual acting as the student body president of that specific university (I got that from the video, too).
And, yeah, he would have to do something wrong with his job in order to be fired. You seem to think that this is an "at-will" employment agreement.
What do you think will happen if his employer (the DA) fires him and gives the reason that he didn't like his outside of work activities? You do know that the termination of his employment would be rather explicitly illegal and falls under discrimination, right? Yes, you can discriminate against a person based on their beliefs...even if those believes are retarded and asinine.