Just curious to hear from the yes voters, how they would react if they were obstensibly fired from their job and fined for expressing an opinion in a private, unknowingly recorded conversation.
I think Sterling consented to the recording. I read that somewhere. He just didn't consent to it being released.
Sterling is a public figure, so the norms of a private citizen don't quite compare. He publicly represents not just his team, but the entire NBA. The NBA has a constitution that governs the behavior of its owners, which Sterling signed onto when he bought the team.
Once his remarks were made public -- however illegally or unethically -- the bell can't be unrung and they created an untenable situation. If nothing where done, the players would have forced the situation, with lots of options for making life miserable for the Clippers and the other owners.
There's also the aspect that this case is just a pretext for finally getting rid of an owner who has spent 33 years being a Grade A jerk (I'd use another word, but Billie would delete it). I saw good riddance. The NBA is better off with out him.
First of all, this guy was out in public with a woman 50 years younger than him (expensive hooker) who was not his wife. Obviously he is a jerk. Second, everyone knew he was racist for years if you look at the lawsuits in his past. He is being punished for a PRIVATE convo on the phone (with his half black hooker). Where does this end? Now, no one can have a private conversation on our own house? Its not like he was out ranting in public: Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, The Seinfeld Guy. And.....Are we really surprised that an OLD white, rich guy (who goes out in public with a hooker when married) is a racist? Clearly, he is just a jerk anyway.....This goes along with Paula Dean: Shocking that an older white woman from the South ever said the "N-word" in her life isn't it??......OR the deep South "Christain" Duck Dynasty guy making anti gay comments (during a public interview). People are actually surprised??.... This is getting WAY out of hand, and you should be able to have an argument with your hooker in your own dam house! Private conversation is just that. Private.
I am glad i am not the NBA guy who had to decide what to do....However, where is the outrage that this guy was out, in public with his mistress?? How humiliating for his wife! I hope she ends up divorcing him and gets all the $$$$!! He actually bought the (half black) hooker 2 Bentley's and a Ferrari, now the Wife is suing to get them back saying they are "joint property".....pass the popcorn, this is gonna get nasty! I also wonder if the IRS is going to go after the hooker for "Gift Tax" on all those goodies......
OK, let's go with that. I'll use the term, Sterling is a jackass, but at the moment, jackassery is not a crime. Sterling has just become the next victim of the thought police ala Dan Cathy, Phil Robertson, Brenden Eich, etc. You are entitled to hold opinions and to express them via your 1st Amendment rights, as long as they don't conflict with certain folks, then you must be punished swiftly and severely. And again I stress, Sterling is a repugnant, ignorant racist, but he has been a known repugnant, ignorant racist for a loooong time all while receiving NAACP lifetime achievement awards and making millionaires out of many young black men. The NBA can do whatever it pleases, but there is a troubling trend developing across many organizations that we should all be wary of. Sterling detractors got their pound of flesh and it feels good but we ALL harbor opinions that others disagree with. Seeing someone publically flogged for their views may seem like justice until our views are the ones that are deemed too volatile and we are officially sanctioned for them. I personally believe that Sterling would have paid for his ignorance through the court of public opinion. Perhaps players could have stood up for what was right and put their large paychecks at risk by refusing to play for him. Sponsorship pullouts, social pressure, negative feedback from fans all would have either caused him to repent or retreat. But official actions such as what the NBA brought run dangerously close to sanctioning thought. Is the NBA better off without Sterling, yep, is our society better off without that kind of hatred towards others, yep, but it exists and we must tread lightly when it comes to attempting to officially eradicate viewpoints we don't like.
So he is a jerk and a racist, no argument there at all, and not new with this guy.
But I am not sure I want him not to be allowed to own a business and have it taken away. That team is his property and just because you do not like what he says, I don't think anyone has a right to say he can not own it anymore.
Now if there is some rule or contract he signed with the NBA that allows them to take away his property, that is different. But if not, this is a very slippery slope. If you can take away a persons property for what they say, what are the limits?
Do NBA players have to sign a code of conduct like NFL players do? What's good for the employees is good for the employer. I have to sign a code of conduct at work and the way I behave outside of work can effect my employment, that is something I accept as part of the terms of my employment.
The First Amendment does not protect a person from being fired, censored or punished by private employers, individuals or organizations. Sure, he is allowed to say the repugnant crap that he said, but the First Amendment doesn't indicate that he should pay no penalty for his words. The First Amendment ONLY protects you from official government censorship or imprisonment, etc. Nobody censored him. He freely spewed his idiocy, and now he is being punished. There has been no violation of free speech; those of you stating otherwise need to actually read the First Amendment, because you don't seem to understand the definition of "free speech."
I agree with Julie about one thing. This evil (yes, evil) little bigot has been pulling racist crap for years. It's about time somebody made him pay; this *should* have come long ago.
According to this if the NBA commissioner gets a 3/4 vote it is well within the the league's right to remove Sterling.
I do not see where his business is getting "taken away". I am seeing talks of a forced SALE, not confiscation.
Whether or not the recording was legal or illegal really has no bearing on this as it is not a criminal case or civil case where evidence is thrown out or not allowed to be brought up. I see it more as a contracts case. In being approved by the league to own a team Sterling agreed to the bylaws and constitution of the NBA. If he feels wrongly terminated I would presume he could sue the NBA and I assume he could take action against his mistress if it was illegally taped (I too had seen where Sterling wanted conversations taped cause he has a poor memory-not sure if true or not).
His actions were going to cost OTHERS money, not just himself, if the court of public opinion were allowed to be carried out. At least 10 sponsors had already backed off due to his actions. Should these people be forced into financial hardship or revenue loss, etc., THEN have action taken?
Sterling has been a problem for years but Stern never had the sac to do anything about it..
But Stern didn't bother to hit the Clippers' owner, or at the very least investigate him, when he gleefully admitted to trading money for sex. Or when he paid a $2.7 million settlement to the U.S. Justice Department after he was accused in a federal discrimination suit of saying that "black tenants smell and attract vermin" and that "Hispanics smoke, drink, and just hang around the building." Or when Elgin Baylor accused Sterling in a wrongful termination suit of establishing "a vision of a Southern plantation-type structure" for the franchise and of wanting a team of "poor black boys from the South" that, of course, would play for a white coach.
Jeff, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has raised issues pretty much along the same lines you have.
There's a point there.
But the NBA is also a private organization and to become a member of that organization, you agree to abide by a certain standard of conduct and character. The fly in the ointment of course is that this billionaires club hasn't always done a good job of policing itself, but that aside, it has the right to.
Let's put it this way, let's say Vern Starling joins becomes a Boy Scout scoutmaster. He becomes public associated as Boy Scout leader. He then makes comments and go viral and are highly embarrassing to the church and clearly demonstrate some values that on 100 percent contrary to Scout's values. Should the Scouts have the right to expel him? (we're talking in general here, there are all kinds of variables that might play into the decision ... does a private organization have the right to uphold it's own standards)?
Debbie, while Sterling will receive compensation for his team, it's not truly a free market transaction because a forced sale diminishes his bargaining power. Further, as a matter of property rights, he's losing, against his well, his enjoyment of his property.
The way I understand the NBA constitution however, is the owners have every right to force him to sell and he really has no recourse. The constitution technically bans him from suing.
Also, as an aside just to be clear, even if the owners don't vote to force him to sell, he's still banned. The commissioner can act unilaterally on that point if the owners don't like it, their only choice is to fire him.
Emma, I wasn't implying that Sterling was protected legally in this case by the 1st Amendment, that was to the trend that includes public officials and is a case for another debate, sorry for the confusion. However, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this was the "last straw" in a string of stupidity by Sterling. He said and did FAR more egregious things in the past while receiving praise from the NAACP and a pass from the NBA. This is all about to WHOM the comments were directed. Mistress snaps a pic with Magic Johnson, she knows full well how Sugar Daddy feels about blacks. She then goads him into a conversation about the incident, records it, then sells to highest bidder who just happened to be the deep pocketed TMZ. Meanwhile, Magic Johnson who has put no shade on his desire to own an NBA team immediately expresses his interest in acquiring the Clippers after the sanctions are announced. Win for mistress, win for Magic Johnson, win for NBA reputation as being tough on racism when it has a long documented history of turning a blind eye, win for every elected official who gets a soundbite condemning this idiot. Who loses? The next person who says something that offends a group and falls victim to this new trend of official viewpoint policing. Unfortunately, it might be my viewpoint, or your viewpoint. Let's tag this case and other recent viewpoint excoriations as a reactionary benchmark when someone is officially sanctioned for a viewpoint that we happen to agree with.
Howard, here is how I would parse out the Boy Scout comparison. The Boy Scouts set out a very detailed and very public set of standards that they expect leaders to abide by. Whether you agree with them or not, they do not hide them nor do they make excuses for them. In the case of Adam Silvers sanctions on Sterling, at this point we have to ascertain if they were made on the conversation alone, or on Sterling's complete history. The second choice is bad since he engaged in repeated and much worse actions (not words, actions) for which he skated. Not only did he skate, he was lauded for other actions for minorities. If we go on the taped conversation alone then the basis for his sanctions is that he is against interracial relationships. He didn't use derogatory terms or indicate any potential harm to anyone based on the color of their skin. Again, I am not defending Sterling, his history tells a very stark truth and I don't agree with his views. If agreements between the NBA and owners state that support of interracial relationships is required then all this is moot and Sterling got his due.
I just began wondering. Assuming the NBA constitution is written in such a manner that Sterling (can) be 'forced' to sell the team, what would happen if he said, "OK, the team is now up for sale. I will sell it to the 1st bidder over 3-BILLION $$$"?
D'ya suppose the NBA gets to decide the "asking price"?
well well well . appears quite a few of you have no problem calling mr. sterling names. jerk, evil little bigot and his girlfriend a hooker.
so you holier people have no problem posting your opinion of this man when all he did was state his opinion....
i did vote NO. until a few days ago i never heard of this man, now i have respect for him because he is not afraid to say how he feels.
i however am very afraid to say how i truly feel as the Batavian lynch mob would hang me.
the NBA sucks anyways.
Just curious to hear from the
Just curious to hear from the yes voters, how they would react if they were obstensibly fired from their job and fined for expressing an opinion in a private, unknowingly recorded conversation.
I think Sterling consented to
I think Sterling consented to the recording. I read that somewhere. He just didn't consent to it being released.
Sterling is a public figure, so the norms of a private citizen don't quite compare. He publicly represents not just his team, but the entire NBA. The NBA has a constitution that governs the behavior of its owners, which Sterling signed onto when he bought the team.
Once his remarks were made public -- however illegally or unethically -- the bell can't be unrung and they created an untenable situation. If nothing where done, the players would have forced the situation, with lots of options for making life miserable for the Clippers and the other owners.
There's also the aspect that this case is just a pretext for finally getting rid of an owner who has spent 33 years being a Grade A jerk (I'd use another word, but Billie would delete it). I saw good riddance. The NBA is better off with out him.
Frankly, I don't understand the no votes.
First of all, this guy was
First of all, this guy was out in public with a woman 50 years younger than him (expensive hooker) who was not his wife. Obviously he is a jerk. Second, everyone knew he was racist for years if you look at the lawsuits in his past. He is being punished for a PRIVATE convo on the phone (with his half black hooker). Where does this end? Now, no one can have a private conversation on our own house? Its not like he was out ranting in public: Mel Gibson, Alec Baldwin, The Seinfeld Guy. And.....Are we really surprised that an OLD white, rich guy (who goes out in public with a hooker when married) is a racist? Clearly, he is just a jerk anyway.....This goes along with Paula Dean: Shocking that an older white woman from the South ever said the "N-word" in her life isn't it??......OR the deep South "Christain" Duck Dynasty guy making anti gay comments (during a public interview). People are actually surprised??.... This is getting WAY out of hand, and you should be able to have an argument with your hooker in your own dam house! Private conversation is just that. Private.
I am glad i am not the NBA guy who had to decide what to do....However, where is the outrage that this guy was out, in public with his mistress?? How humiliating for his wife! I hope she ends up divorcing him and gets all the $$$$!! He actually bought the (half black) hooker 2 Bentley's and a Ferrari, now the Wife is suing to get them back saying they are "joint property".....pass the popcorn, this is gonna get nasty! I also wonder if the IRS is going to go after the hooker for "Gift Tax" on all those goodies......
OK, let's go with that. I'll
OK, let's go with that. I'll use the term, Sterling is a jackass, but at the moment, jackassery is not a crime. Sterling has just become the next victim of the thought police ala Dan Cathy, Phil Robertson, Brenden Eich, etc. You are entitled to hold opinions and to express them via your 1st Amendment rights, as long as they don't conflict with certain folks, then you must be punished swiftly and severely. And again I stress, Sterling is a repugnant, ignorant racist, but he has been a known repugnant, ignorant racist for a loooong time all while receiving NAACP lifetime achievement awards and making millionaires out of many young black men. The NBA can do whatever it pleases, but there is a troubling trend developing across many organizations that we should all be wary of. Sterling detractors got their pound of flesh and it feels good but we ALL harbor opinions that others disagree with. Seeing someone publically flogged for their views may seem like justice until our views are the ones that are deemed too volatile and we are officially sanctioned for them. I personally believe that Sterling would have paid for his ignorance through the court of public opinion. Perhaps players could have stood up for what was right and put their large paychecks at risk by refusing to play for him. Sponsorship pullouts, social pressure, negative feedback from fans all would have either caused him to repent or retreat. But official actions such as what the NBA brought run dangerously close to sanctioning thought. Is the NBA better off without Sterling, yep, is our society better off without that kind of hatred towards others, yep, but it exists and we must tread lightly when it comes to attempting to officially eradicate viewpoints we don't like.
So he is a jerk and a racist,
So he is a jerk and a racist, no argument there at all, and not new with this guy.
But I am not sure I want him not to be allowed to own a business and have it taken away. That team is his property and just because you do not like what he says, I don't think anyone has a right to say he can not own it anymore.
Now if there is some rule or contract he signed with the NBA that allows them to take away his property, that is different. But if not, this is a very slippery slope. If you can take away a persons property for what they say, what are the limits?
Do NBA players have to sign a
Do NBA players have to sign a code of conduct like NFL players do? What's good for the employees is good for the employer. I have to sign a code of conduct at work and the way I behave outside of work can effect my employment, that is something I accept as part of the terms of my employment.
The First Amendment does not
The First Amendment does not protect a person from being fired, censored or punished by private employers, individuals or organizations. Sure, he is allowed to say the repugnant crap that he said, but the First Amendment doesn't indicate that he should pay no penalty for his words. The First Amendment ONLY protects you from official government censorship or imprisonment, etc. Nobody censored him. He freely spewed his idiocy, and now he is being punished. There has been no violation of free speech; those of you stating otherwise need to actually read the First Amendment, because you don't seem to understand the definition of "free speech."
I agree with Julie about one thing. This evil (yes, evil) little bigot has been pulling racist crap for years. It's about time somebody made him pay; this *should* have come long ago.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/07/09/2008042462.pdf
According to this if the NBA commissioner gets a 3/4 vote it is well within the the league's right to remove Sterling.
I do not see where his business is getting "taken away". I am seeing talks of a forced SALE, not confiscation.
Whether or not the recording was legal or illegal really has no bearing on this as it is not a criminal case or civil case where evidence is thrown out or not allowed to be brought up. I see it more as a contracts case. In being approved by the league to own a team Sterling agreed to the bylaws and constitution of the NBA. If he feels wrongly terminated I would presume he could sue the NBA and I assume he could take action against his mistress if it was illegally taped (I too had seen where Sterling wanted conversations taped cause he has a poor memory-not sure if true or not).
His actions were going to cost OTHERS money, not just himself, if the court of public opinion were allowed to be carried out. At least 10 sponsors had already backed off due to his actions. Should these people be forced into financial hardship or revenue loss, etc., THEN have action taken?
Sterling has been a problem for years but Stern never had the sac to do anything about it..
But Stern didn't bother to hit the Clippers' owner, or at the very least investigate him, when he gleefully admitted to trading money for sex. Or when he paid a $2.7 million settlement to the U.S. Justice Department after he was accused in a federal discrimination suit of saying that "black tenants smell and attract vermin" and that "Hispanics smoke, drink, and just hang around the building." Or when Elgin Baylor accused Sterling in a wrongful termination suit of establishing "a vision of a Southern plantation-type structure" for the franchise and of wanting a team of "poor black boys from the South" that, of course, would play for a white coach.
http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/10857899/shame-david-stern-n…
Jeff, Mavericks owner Mark
Jeff, Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has raised issues pretty much along the same lines you have.
There's a point there.
But the NBA is also a private organization and to become a member of that organization, you agree to abide by a certain standard of conduct and character. The fly in the ointment of course is that this billionaires club hasn't always done a good job of policing itself, but that aside, it has the right to.
Let's put it this way, let's say Vern Starling joins becomes a Boy Scout scoutmaster. He becomes public associated as Boy Scout leader. He then makes comments and go viral and are highly embarrassing to the church and clearly demonstrate some values that on 100 percent contrary to Scout's values. Should the Scouts have the right to expel him? (we're talking in general here, there are all kinds of variables that might play into the decision ... does a private organization have the right to uphold it's own standards)?
Debbie, while Sterling will receive compensation for his team, it's not truly a free market transaction because a forced sale diminishes his bargaining power. Further, as a matter of property rights, he's losing, against his well, his enjoyment of his property.
The way I understand the NBA constitution however, is the owners have every right to force him to sell and he really has no recourse. The constitution technically bans him from suing.
Also, as an aside just to be clear, even if the owners don't vote to force him to sell, he's still banned. The commissioner can act unilaterally on that point if the owners don't like it, their only choice is to fire him.
Emma, I wasn't implying that
Emma, I wasn't implying that Sterling was protected legally in this case by the 1st Amendment, that was to the trend that includes public officials and is a case for another debate, sorry for the confusion. However, let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this was the "last straw" in a string of stupidity by Sterling. He said and did FAR more egregious things in the past while receiving praise from the NAACP and a pass from the NBA. This is all about to WHOM the comments were directed. Mistress snaps a pic with Magic Johnson, she knows full well how Sugar Daddy feels about blacks. She then goads him into a conversation about the incident, records it, then sells to highest bidder who just happened to be the deep pocketed TMZ. Meanwhile, Magic Johnson who has put no shade on his desire to own an NBA team immediately expresses his interest in acquiring the Clippers after the sanctions are announced. Win for mistress, win for Magic Johnson, win for NBA reputation as being tough on racism when it has a long documented history of turning a blind eye, win for every elected official who gets a soundbite condemning this idiot. Who loses? The next person who says something that offends a group and falls victim to this new trend of official viewpoint policing. Unfortunately, it might be my viewpoint, or your viewpoint. Let's tag this case and other recent viewpoint excoriations as a reactionary benchmark when someone is officially sanctioned for a viewpoint that we happen to agree with.
Howard, here is how I would
Howard, here is how I would parse out the Boy Scout comparison. The Boy Scouts set out a very detailed and very public set of standards that they expect leaders to abide by. Whether you agree with them or not, they do not hide them nor do they make excuses for them. In the case of Adam Silvers sanctions on Sterling, at this point we have to ascertain if they were made on the conversation alone, or on Sterling's complete history. The second choice is bad since he engaged in repeated and much worse actions (not words, actions) for which he skated. Not only did he skate, he was lauded for other actions for minorities. If we go on the taped conversation alone then the basis for his sanctions is that he is against interracial relationships. He didn't use derogatory terms or indicate any potential harm to anyone based on the color of their skin. Again, I am not defending Sterling, his history tells a very stark truth and I don't agree with his views. If agreements between the NBA and owners state that support of interracial relationships is required then all this is moot and Sterling got his due.
I just began wondering.
I just began wondering. Assuming the NBA constitution is written in such a manner that Sterling (can) be 'forced' to sell the team, what would happen if he said, "OK, the team is now up for sale. I will sell it to the 1st bidder over 3-BILLION $$$"?
D'ya suppose the NBA gets to decide the "asking price"?
Just asking! Anyone have thoughts on that aspect?
well well well . appears
well well well . appears quite a few of you have no problem calling mr. sterling names. jerk, evil little bigot and his girlfriend a hooker.
so you holier people have no problem posting your opinion of this man when all he did was state his opinion....
i did vote NO. until a few days ago i never heard of this man, now i have respect for him because he is not afraid to say how he feels.
i however am very afraid to say how i truly feel as the Batavian lynch mob would hang me.
the NBA sucks anyways.
David Spaulding wrote "the
David Spaulding wrote "the NBA sucks anyways." I for one cannot argue that point as I have been saying that for years! Slam dunk David!!!
Why is it, a white man speaks
Why is it, a white man speaks his mind, he's a racist......a black man speaks his
mind, he's an activist ?