My opinion on Shirvell vs. Armstrong

I came across this early this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/08/michigan.asst.attorney.general/index.html

Andrew Shirvell authored a blog against a college Senior and sociology major

Shirvell's lawyer, Phillip Thomas thinks it's political and blaims the liberal media--why, because Shirvell is a Christian?

Shirvell was whining about being bullied? Who's the bully here?

Where is the precedent that the First Amendment allows people to bully others on a blog? The precedent for use of the First Amendment has been related to people complaining about the government. Cox claims that bullying is protected under First Amendment rights?!

But Shirvell didn't get in trouble for the blog (supposedly, I guess because sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can't hurt?)

Shirvell says he is a Christian exercising his First Amendment right--to stand outside the kid's house and call him Satan's representative? That's Christian? What about "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

While I'm glad there were repercussions for his actions, I'm disappointed in the logic used.