They say the delay is because of the investigation into his cyber-stalking, and, in all fairness, it would be kind of douchey to fire someone without at least taking a couple of weeks to see what happened. I know most people don't get the benefit of an employer who wants to be sure before firing, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be this way:
Cox wrote that Shirvell wasn't fired for exercising his First Amendment rights, but rather for "harassing conduct," among other reasons.
"The cumulative effects of his use of state resources, harassing conduct that is NOT protected by the First Amendment, and his lies during the disciplinary conference all demonstrate adequate evidence of conduct unbecoming a state employee," Cox wrote in the statement.
According to the press release, Shirvell went to Armstrong's house three times -- one of which was at 1:30 a.m.
"That incident is especially telling because it clearly was about harassing Mr. Armstrong, not engaging in free speech," Cox wrote.
So who wants to stand up to defend Shirvell? The right would be jumping all over this as an example of someone's free speech being trampled if Shirvell could do interviews without coming off completely creepy.