• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Petition In Support Of Pat Williams

Wow...just... wow.

I was going to point out how horribly wrong you are when it comes to the constitution, but I think others have done a good job of that so far.

This ranks right up there with Stevie Dill whining about how the mods violated his constitutional rights by deleting a post he made or something like that.

Always cracks me up how so many people who are quick to point at the constitution while whining and crying don't actually have a fucking clue what it says.
 
grizfnz said:
When drafted, the purpose of the second amendment was to allow a person to speak out against government with out retaliation from said entity. It was not intended to allow a person to run their mouth and embarrass an organization or employer without suffering the consequences of doing so. If I give my opinion in a newspaper (be it the local rag or the NYT) or even social media while identifying myself as representing my employer/organization and my opinion causes harm or paints my employer in a negative light I can be fired.
Per Montana Code
TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 2. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

2-2-103. Public trust -- public duty. (1) The holding of public office or employment is a public trust, created by the confidence that the electorate reposes in the integrity of public officers, legislators, and public employees. A public officer, legislator, or public employee shall carry out the individual's duties for the benefit of the people of the state.
(2) A public officer, legislator, or public employee whose conduct departs from the person's public duty is liable to the people of the state and is subject to the penalties provided in this part for abuse of the public's trust.
Click to expand...

I always thought the 2nd amendment was about the right t o keep and bear arms, for the purpose of preventing government tyranny
 
I haven't really commented on this topic because I didn't really care. While I respect him for his past service to our state, I see him as a more local version of Jimmy Carter. These days, when Jimmy Carter speaks, I don't listen.

As far as him getting fired for being critical of his "company" and "employees" and "bosses". I see him as the "boss", in that example. I think the boss is allowed to be critical. Now we could say he is the a VP of the "company", which would make all of us citizens of MT(don't care about your opinion if you don't live in this state, sorry) the board of directors. This is actually kind of fun. The board could fire a VP for something like this, but I don't think they would, untimately. I think there would be some private discussions, but overall I think it would be handled like the other BOR members handled it.

As far as the Freedom of Speech goes, I think Spiderman's uncle said it best, "With great power comes great responsibility". I think it was ol Spidey's uncle at least. The FOS is a great power and with it comes an inherant responsibility. Libel and slander would not exist if we were able to say anything we wanted to. As well, everyone here has the right to disagree which is their freedom of speech coming in to play. An example of this is the good ol Dixie Chicks. (as an aside, don't like em, but the last album they came out with after the fiasco...great album, kind of like they decided no one was going to buy it so lets just worry about putting out good music, not the crap they had been putting out). The DC's used their right to say what they did..everyone else used their rights to not buy their music anymore. They suffered because of what they said. Noone's going to arrest them for it, but noone has to buy their music anymore.
 
He has the right to say whatever he likes as do any of us. He does however, have to understand that there are going to be ramifications for being a public person and saying what he likes. If he does indeed represent the people of Montana on the Board of Regents then his views should mirror his contituency or face the consequences of no longer representing them.
 
The 1st amendment right of free speech gives us the right to speak regardless of whether we are right or wrong, smart or stupid. It does not require those who hear it to agree. If a person gets up and speaks in support of child abuse, an employer can chose to not hire that person because of that speech. The constitution does not require that we accept the message of free speech and it does not forbid us from forming opinions based on that speech.

Appointment to a governing board should be based on a persons character, dedication and good judgment. Pat Williams has every right to state his opinion just like people have the right to perceive his character, dedication and judgment based on his statement. I support his right to make a statement like he did. Based on that statement and my perception of him over the years, I don't believe he has the character, dedication or good judgment to sit on a board directing the fate of college athletes he so disdains.

In my opinion, simply having Pat Williams as a member of the Board of Regents puts the rights of those young people he collectively condemns in jeopardy. Pat Williams right of free speech remains intact. Given his power, he is protected. The rights of the students he freely demonizes should be of concern to the Governor and legislature. They should weigh that risk and Williams statements should be considered as representative of the threat to the rights of these students.

Just like someone so strongly biased and extreme should not serve on a jury, Pat Williams should not serve in a position of control on the BOR.
 
Pat Williams apparently said what he wanted. No one stopped him or even could if they wanted -- or so it would seem. The point is that he is not the average citizen trying to be heard. He is a public servant using a national medium to clumsily voice an opinion that might have been useful about a year ago. You explain what good it did anyone for him to raise the issue to a national level without a shred of information that wasn't known long ago and I'll sign the petition. Help me understand exactly what he was helping or trying to make better that wasn't already being dealt with? Besides, it is probably a good bet that he went outside the boundaries of decorum if not an outright dereliction of duty to voice an official opinion without approval of his peers and bosses (if you hadn't noticed they all pretty much disavowed his little rant). I have never seen the job description of a regent but you can bet there are limits to their powers.

Face it, this is Pat Williams saying "look at me, look at me, I haven't dissappeared" (which is a politicians worst nightmare). And as much as it pains me, 2506 is right, it it the First Amendent that guarantees right to free speech. Note, "the right to free speech", not the right to say anything any time. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater will still get you arrested.
 
Griz Voice of Reason said:
There are a number of freedoms I cherish and that the constitution holds sacred. First is the right to bare arms. The second is freedom of speech. Williams has both those rights as well. Simply disagree and move on. To protect and honor his right of free speech I too am starting a petition, but in support of Williams. More to come.
Click to expand...

You're entitled that that opinion for sure, and yes he is most certainly entitled to his opinion and voicing it. No one wants him silenced, the petition is not asking him to change his opinion.

I see it from a few points:

1. First and foremost it should be clearly stated that YES the Grizzlies in the past have made mistakes on a few recruits that one can easily say, they came here and acted like thugs and most were arrested/punished for that behavior. The issue I take (and others have) with it is the WAY Regent Williams made that point. He used a broad brush in not one but two interviews to label the entire team and state that it's an ongoing problem. I believe if he said, "The UM has had issues with recruiting thugs in the past who have put the UM football program in a bad light with their arrests and thuggery. This issue is being addressed and I realize we're talking about a handful of kids over the years, however even a handful is too many." Then I can't really imagine anyone being up in arms about this. Instead he did not differentiate, he called the players and recruits thugs who commit thuggery and lawless marauders. He didn't back down and in a radio interview said he was going to sit down with our current head coach to talk about recruiting practices - which tells me he thinks this is still going on.

2. He's a public servant and in a role where his opinions and decisions directly influence the very school and program that's he's bashing publicly. If members of the public want him removed from that, they start a petition. This is happening right now in Missoula with other public figures over comments and actions with the Apostle pay-raise (super intendent of schools here) who appear to be on a path to be removed via petition themselves. It's the process we have given to us to make our voices heard.

3. His comments made and the ongoing defense of said comments suggest he cannot complete the duties given to him as a regent without a fair and impartial mind. I think of all the crucial things that are being lobbied for our football team right now (locker rooms, weight room, indoor practice facility) and you realize he sits on the panel that has to approve this. Based on earlier statements and his actions of late I do not believe he will be able to fairly consider these projects once the funds have been raised. For that, I also want him removed.
 
I love how under the coments of this petition, people are screaming that PW has the right to "freedom of speech" and then Imply that all that disagree with him should shut up....

Oh the liberal hypocrisy...
 
Griz Voice of Reason said:
There are a number of freedoms I cherish and that the constitution holds sacred. First is the right to bare arms. The second is freedom of speech. Williams has both those rights as well. Simply disagree and move on. To protect and honor his right of free speech I too am starting a petition, but in support of Williams. More to come.
Click to expand...

so says mrs pat williams :jack:
 
Hypocrisy is a two-way street. I'm pretty liberal, and I think what Williams said was idiotic. Scott Gratton, author of the petition, is also pretty left of center I believe. So don't try to turn this into another simple-minded political debate. We might actually agree on something here.
 
AllWeatherFan said:
Hypocrisy is a two-way street. I'm pretty liberal, and I think what Williams said was idiotic. Scott Gratton, author of the petition, is also pretty left of center I believe. So don't try to turn this into another simple-minded political debate. We might actually agree on something here.
Click to expand...

I was not talking about the authors of the petition, but rather some of the VERY dumb comments posted underneath it.
 
BW is spot on in his comments. PW is a public employee and public employees have a responsibility to contain their comments. PW's comment certainly points to how he feels about the University of Montana football program and I question his ability to make unbiased decisions regarding that program while on the BOR. I also feel it is outside the responsibility of a Regent to be discussing recruiting with a coach. One can only imagine the public reaction if all public employees said what they really thought. Romney's 47% comment is a good example of a public figure sharing what they really think.
 
Blgs Griz Fan said:
Romney's 47% comment is a good example of a public figure sharing what they really think.
Click to expand...

Good point - and the results of what said comments could do to your job as a public official.
 
Griz Voice of Reason said:
In effect folks are persecuting him for persecuting the football team. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...
I think you miss the point. We aren't persecuting him for saying things about the football team (lord knows I have voiced my complaints) but rather when he uses the BOR behind his name. Now you speak as a official not a misinformed citizen that you are.
 
Excellent responses to Mr. or Mrs. Voice of Reason :!: I guess this board is not full of inbred, thuggish posters after all. :shock: :o
 
So I guess there is a total of 1 signature on your petition so far, GVOR? Party on Wayne.... Party on Garth...
 
Griz Voice of Reason said:
There are a number of freedoms I cherish and that the constitution holds sacred. First is the right to bare arms. The second is freedom of speech. Williams has both those rights as well. Simply disagree and move on. To protect and honor his right of free speech I too am starting a petition, but in support of Williams. More to come.
Click to expand...

You can certainly say what you want, but there may be consequences. For example, if I said something bad about my employer out in the public then my employer certainly has the right to terminate me. Ask Colter Nuanez how that worked out for him at the Bozeman Chronicle. The facts are that PW represents our Montana public colleges as a BOR. As such, any comments he makes about them publically need to be tempered and show a level of common sense. He does have his right to his own opinions, but those should be kept private. You have put forth one of the weakest arguments I have ever seen about freedom of speech. Notice how fast the BOR distanced themselves from him. It's time for PW to go...
 
If I were a member of this football team, like a Jordan Tripp for example, or any other of the 80+ guys who haven't caused any problems, I would sue PW for slander and depredation of my character!
Yes he has the right of freedom of speech just like everyone else, but when you use "speech to the public" in a position of power such as PW's to characterize people in general, it is wrong!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top