AP/ August 16, 2012, 9:11 PM

Lawyer ordered to pay $4.5M to gay U-M student

Getty Images

(AP) DETROIT - A jury on Thursday awarded a gay University of Michigan student body president $4.5 million in his lawsuit against a former Michigan assistant attorney general who posted about him in an anti-gay blog.

The U.S. District Court jury ruled in favor of Christopher Armstrong, who claimed he suffered distress after a blog created by Andrew Shirvell accused him of enticing minors with alcohol and recruiting people to become homosexual.

"I'm just incredibly humbled by what happened today," Armstrong told The Associated Press. "This is truly a victory — not just for myself, but for a lot of other kids out there."

Shirvell, who was representing himself, said the jury award was "grossly excessive" for what was "clearly protected speech ... and activity."

"This should have been thrown out," he said, adding that he plans to appeal. "Juries give short shrift to First Amendment rights."

Armstrong accused Shirvell of defamation as well as emotional distress for his actions on the blog, in Facebook posts and during visits to the Ann Arbor campus.

Then-Attorney General Mike Cox fired Shirvell in 2010 after he criticized Armstrong, who graduated last year.

Shirvell has said he viewed his blog "as a movement to get" Armstrong to resign. Shirvell argued he was acting within his First Amendment rights and that his statements were either true or protected because of Armstrong's role as a public figure.

Armstrong's attorney, Deborah Gordon, had said she would drop the lawsuit if Shirvell apologized and retracted his comments. Shirvell said that was disingenuous, since it wasn't until closing arguments that a multimillion-dollar award was brought up.

Shirvell said he's unemployed and "there's no way I could possibly ever pay such a judgment."

Gordon said the jury couldn't make him apologize, so the money was the only answer.

"We needed him to retract the flat-out fabrications he had come up with about Chris," she said. "Once he refused to take responsibility, we put it in the hands of the jury."

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
55 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Mike_in_USA says:
Shirvell said he's unemployed and "there's no way I could possibly ever pay such a judgment." Poor baby. How about those people that lost jobs and the lawyers and courts shill for the collection agency's right enough and they too have to pay. A lawyer getting it back? Warms my heart. Maybe he too can be homeless or live in someone's basement.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mnollette says:
We developed a relationship that produced babies and we now have 4 grandchildren. Seems almost impossible...
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
john92021 says:
warms my heart to see a lawyer crash and burn.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jess90069 says:
People that scream "Freedom of Speech" really need to re-read the amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It does NOT condone abusive, rude, mean, derogatory HATE speech!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
twhiting9276 says:
The 1st amendment isn't applicable in this situation. The 1st ONLY applies to situations where government is involved. It specifically states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing here is applicable in a civil manner. Were the awards ridiculous? YEAH. However, the First isn't applicable here, and it's time people stopped using that BS "free speech" argument. Yes, you CAN say whatever you want, but you MUST also be held accountable
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hypnotoad72 says:
I hate to say it, but let's read what was so offensive that it's worth that much money.

It must be a real piece of work to cause such a hurtful response.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
andrewjsacks says:
Good. The time for bigotry is over. Someone spread the word to AZ and TX.
reply
Haggi57 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What is bigoted about Arizona and Texas. Their determination to enforce the immigration laws?

How is the desire to fulfill the will of the people, considered bigotry?
hypnotoad72 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Haggi57 -

"populism" is a dangerous excuse to make.

Some would use it to justify the reintegration of slavery or similar paradigms...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHDUaYGOFso
Listen to it in its entirety. THAT is what populism boils down to - he claims to represent people but if the people want slavery. He uses his constituents as puppets, and he forgets that we are supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. Nor would democracy, by any measure involving informed and educated people, tolerate slavery, because such educated people would understand they might fit the definition of "slave".
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pbaird2 says:
People must be held accountable for their actions of malice. Publishing false statements and inuendo is not the same as speaking one's mind to another in conversation; especially when the intent is to provoke negativity towards another. Those that believe this type of diatribe is protected under free speech are the same who would be seeking redress were the situations reversed. Such a shame people cannot accept the opinions of others and tolerate our differences; those differences is what has made this country achieve such greatness and respectability. Soon, we shall be no better than those we abhor in the Middle East.
reply
hypnotoad72 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Free speech was never intended to cover outright lying or defamation (based on lies or said innuendo). Free speech allows fair criticism without repercussion...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
wolfmagic2012 says:
I applaud the verdict. Perhaps now this nasty little man and other nasty little men like him will think twice before spewing libelous hate speech.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
nomorelibs says:
I have no problem with someone being sued for defamation. But if what this guy posted was true, is it defamation? And no, I'm not saying what he said is true. I'm just asking a question.
reply
nomorelibs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Either way, $4.5M is ridiculous. What kind of jury awards this kind of crap. What joke!
hypnotoad72 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
nomorelibs -

As a kid, I was dealt far worse and got $0 for it.

Defamation is a fair issue to consider, as defamation occurs when accusations are thrown out with absolutely nothing to even back up or prop up said claim with, but I suspect the terminology and qualifiers for it will become so loose that anyone can cry... in short, change your name to "nomorediscussionforums" thanks to those who typically don't cite sources...
See all 55 Comments
Scroll Left Scroll Right