Governor Feels UW Made Right Decision On Ayers

William Ayers won't be speaking at the University of Wyoming anytime soon.
William Ayers won't be speaking at the University of Wyoming anytime soon.

The University of Wyoming's decision to cancel the William Ayers presentation earlier this month has sparked quite a bit of controversy as well as a lawsuit filed by Colorado Attorney David Lane. Lane claims that Ayers 1st Amendment rights were violated when school officials stated that his client could not speak anywhere on campus, whether it be at a formal event or informally. Ayers is scheduled to be in Laramie Wednesday, April 28th; however, it is still undecided just where he'll give his speech.

Governor Dave Freudenthal agrees with the University's decision to cancel the presentation that was to take place April 5th.

Be sure to cast your vote on this week's Bank of Sheridan/ sheridanmedia.com poll question: Should Bill Ayers be allowed to speak at the University of Wyoming? Sheridan Media has contacted Mr. Ayers and invited him to be our guest on this Friday's Public Pulse program; however, we are still awaiting confirmation on if he'll be available.

First Northern Bank
view counter

No Ms love your statement is

No Ms love your statement is completely inaccurate. First he could not be 100% sure that no one would get hurt when the bombs exploded. That is an uneducated assumption on his part and yours. It shows a blatant disregard for life and complete ignorance on yours. Is your idea -when one disagress with the govt they blow something up and assume no one woudl be hurt. Frankly you need to pull your head out- this guy is a radical with dangerous agenda who could have killed people- now he simply runs his mouth to do harm to the country who has given him everything.

I'm with her on this one.

I'm with her on this one.

Stick with the Facts

100% fact: not one person was harmed, not one person killed. THE END. Whether it was planned to harm people or not, it didnt happen.

To base everything about Ayers on what could of happened is very dangerous and closed minded. (ignorance is very dangerous)We all could have an agenda that might or could kill or harm somebody if we went about our agenda in the wrong manner. Can too much thinking inside the box make a person radical and dangerous?

Maybe the cigarette companies have an agenda. To make billions of dollars by killing Americans with nicotine and smoke inhalation. Blantent disregard for life. A nation of addicts. Radical and dangerous. They simply cause harm to the world for financial gain and greed. I guess I will just have to remember "to smoke cigarettes is to be free". I guess I am also a radical because I do disagree. Even with the mighty government. Sometimes.

Please reread my post; I

Please reread my post; I never said he could be 100% sure that no one would get hurt when the bombs exploded. I said that he went out of his way to avoid hurting anybody and that his intent was not to harm or kill anyone. Of course he couldn't be 100% sure--it would be ludicrous to say otherwise. I think you may be assuming I am assuming something I am not.

Again, we should consider what our Government was doing at the time and not assume any glib interpretations which presuppose the U.S. is always right. Rather than dismiss people outright as "terrorists" it is important to really look at the facts and really consider them before we snap to judgments.

Also, remember that many of our founding fathers would be considered "terrorists" from a certain perspective.

The government

I feel the government murdered those people at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Did this give Tim McVeigh justification for Oklahoma City? What if he had done it at three in the morning? And for those that are all to eager to label him (Ayers) a terrorist, Were french resistance fighters terrorists? The Nazi's thought so. Terrorism is first and foremost a tactic, and declaring war on it was as stupid as declaring war on the frontal assault or the flanking movement.

I think you make an

I think you make an excellent point about terrorism being foremost a tactic.

However

You seem to be rather ignorant, uneducated yourself. Bill Ayers WAS a radical with an equally dangerous agenda with respect to what was happening in Vietnam. The targets of the WMO were EMPTY buildings and statues. When a building was targeted, not only was this done when the building was empty, but warning was also given.
Too bad GW Bush didn't pass along the warning he recieved to our WTC on Sept. 11th, huh?

What you seem to be ignoring here is that, without taking life, Ayers was protesting blatant disregard for human life!

This is not about freedom of speech

I support Ayers right to freedom of speech even though it's debatable that he should still be a free person given his past activities. What I don't support is my tax money providing him a venue to spew his radical views.
It is in no way uncommon for institutions to make determinations as to who gets to use the auditorium.

WHY??

Why would Sheridan media or anyonone else want to hear what this TERRORIST has to say?I just don't get it.Of all the good people to listen to,why him?He has stated he should have done more bombing and killing in the 70's.I just don't get it I guess? Mark M

mark m

Your comment is completely

Your comment is completely inaccurate. First, he deliberately avoided bombing targets when any people were around and he never killed anybody. Second, his statement that he "should have done more" was not referring to bombing, it was simply a statement that he and other protesters were not sufficiently effective in stopping the war.

I wonder

I wonder if Tim Mcveigh had bombed the federal building in the middle of the night and killed no one how many liberals would defend him?

Very few

The reason behind the act is pretty significant here.

so bombing is ok if nobody dies?

I can see we will always disagree on what terrorism is.So if a group of disgruntled citizens decided to destroy Govt. buildings in Sheridan and made sure they were empty,it would be just okay with you.Just as long as these "bombers" were trying to make a point to the government? Would not the people who worked in these buildings and all of the other govt. buildings in Sheridan be "terrified", or perhaps live in TERROR? That is my definition of terrorism.If nobody dies,Everything is justified?

mark m

Lets not forget, our tax

Lets not forget, our tax dollars built the infrastructure that our government officials utilize. They go to work every day in offices that are a lot nicer then the conditions you and I work in. They go to offices that you built and payed for. I think his targets were acceptable political targets, and unlike our war machine he had no human collateral damage.

Yes!

It's a cute little comparison you've made here. Let's put it a bit closer to the reality of the situation...

If the City of Sheridan was inflicting genocide on it's residents or, oh let's just say Ranchester... YES! Bomb the building when no one is inside AND make it known that it was going to happen so that living people could be evacuated if present.

Upon re-reading this comment I realize that it may not be clear that I am simply attempting to put a little perspective on the situation... I do not condone violence in any form. Just to clarify.