donald sterling: yes or no?

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
1

My two cents on Mr. Donald Sterling, owner of the clippers.

A. he has the first amendment rights to speak as his choses. He clearly
has shown himself to be racist but he has the RIGHT to say whatever he
wants and I will defend his right to say whatever he wants to say, however
with that right to say whatever he wants, he also must expect consequences.
You are free to say whatever, but you will get consequences.
He is however not free to act on his words. Thus you can be like Hitler
and say the jews are evil and must be murdered. Now you can say this until the
cows come home but expect the consequences from such words and under no
possibility can you be allowed to act upon such words. Thus if you live in a village and
say, kill the jews, you will probably be shunned forever. NO one is going to associate
with someone who spews such hateful words. You still have the right to say it, but
expect consequences. but even the right to speak freely is not absolute, for example
shouting fire in a theater is rightfully against the law. Words that will create a dangerous
situation cannot be tolerated but words that are just stupid and racist, let them have it.
So for Donald Sterling, I would say have no penalty on him from the NBA, but
also allow the sponsors and fans and whomever to boycott and picket the clippers.
If I were Doc Rivers, I personally would quit the team and no one will think the less of you.
The players are stuck in a difficult place as they have contracts which forces them to play for
the clippers and nowhere else or quit and lose millions of dollars. I feel rather sorry for them,
(but will feel more sorry after the Warriors beat them)
Sterling is wrong and racist and stupid but he has the right to say racist and stupid things…

Kropotkin

2

He was long a known racist.

Chris Paul still came to work for him, Magic still went to his games.

He fired an Italian-American coach that took them to a 50 plus win season, for an African-American coach that ended up leading the team to only two more regular season wins; at the behest of Paul, also an African-American.

The slandering was wide-spread before the words were verified - and if they were to have been verified false the already know racist wouldn’t be given many apologies for the one act of racism he didn’t do, he would supposedly not deserve one.

Which leads to the question, is everyone with an issue here over reacting, or were they underreacting before?

NBA players are known for wearing pink in support of an origination helping to fund care and research related to breast cancer, now black in solidarity over this.

Which then leads to the question, who’re the victims here that are comparable to victims of cancer; those among African-Americans who must turn to the major news stories for their sources of moral outrage, or the African-Americans who didn’t get invited by Sterling to sit in otherwise highly expensive seats?

3

Is the law the only issue? I think I can say that legally, a person can what they want, and legally, they are responsible for the consequences that ensue, and they should come to expect those consequences if they say offensive or controversial things.
On the other hand, I think I can say that if I fire, punish, or otherwise censure a person because I don’t agree with some political opinion they expressed, then I am a shitty person and perhaps I shouldn’t have done that. I don’t think I can, in good conscience, make that “I will defend to the death your right to say that” platitude if I am the kind of person who would do this.

4

I think the guy is a hateful moron. I also think he fucked himself because he’s wrong about how the world really is. His beliefs, and his utterance of them are going to cost him a lot of money and a lot of clout. He can say whatever he wants, but like someone here said, there are consequences. Sometimes the guys at the top forget who’s shoulders they’re standing on. This guy obviously did.

5

The NBA may be able to impose sanctions.

Whose shoulders is he standing on?

6

Two thoughts.

What a 1984 world we live in. You can’t even have a private conversation with your girlfriend, without being recorded. Every moment is under the scrutiny of the thought police.

The NAACP gave him a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009 and he was to get another one which was cancelled because of this incident. LOL

My take : He can say anything he wants in a private conversation and it’s nobody’s business expect the person he is talking to.

7

The players, who are predominantly minorities, and the fans.

8

Fortunately he is rich, and has a beautiful girlfriend, so nobody can accuse him of being bitter, or that he lives in his mother’s basement, or that he’s angry at the world.

Maybe the “he is sick” possibility can deal with the issue.

9

The NBA commissioner stuck the boot in. Looking at it objectively without speaking to the broader implications, it was quite a spectacle, a display of decisive and near absolute power over the league.

10

Contract or not, I doubt the NBA will win this one. It was a private conversation, and not a public announcement, and this is going to run foul of a shit load of private property rights. Its more likely we will see the Clippers tossed out of the NBA with a new team brought in… but not in the same arena… they will have to start from scratch.

Honestly, .if the NBA had the nerve to show up to possess my stadium (assuming I was Don) would hire a security force reinforced by a good ‘Jew Laywer’ (Im not Anti-Semetic but sure he is, so staying in character) who will serve cease and assist papers to any NBA official or proxy stepping foot on my property, including using reasonable force in pursuing citizen arrests, and if the property was seized, you would see the police mass arresting the clearly insane criminal masterminds who are apparently unaware there is a concept of property ownership in the united states, and that legal procedures have to be followed, and some aspects of contracts, like theft of property because you dont like the private views of the owner, are unenforceable in court, as that would require the court to violate the constitution in enforcing some really bad policies that couldnt be enforced otherwise…

The reason why, to borrow the analogy from South Park, is like the time Cartman had a contractual clause requiring if so and so happened, Kyle would have to suck Cartman’s balls… yes, on the TV Cartman brought Kyle to Judge Judy, and she sentenced him to 20.seconds of lushious ball sucking, but in reality such a clause would be unenforceable in court, as it would involve the court itself being the legitimizer of a heinous act outside of a lawful sentence of criminal justice,.which contractual disputes almost never result in.

The NBA is likely going to realize how big of a fucking mess it just got itself in from acting impulsively and short sightedly. They committed the far bigger wrong… intention of grand theft over some minor bigoted statements some fatass made… people say stuff way worst, including players. Im under no illusions most are hypocrites, but a few may soon be in jail for trespassing, breaking a entry, theft, violation of trademark, breech of contracts, etc. They did it to themselves.

Though, of course, he could fold and say fuck it, and let it go… but he doesnt seem the type.

Fascinating how someone can be banned from their own property… I cant wait to.hear this legal argument. If a doctor owns a hospital, a state medical board cant revoke him from being in a operating room, just ban him from practicing medicine… he can sit his ass down in the operating room and kick back, watching as many operations as he wants, so long as he follows medical asepsis standards… cause its his property.

If the state cant boot someone under those conditions, Id like to see how these dipshits plan to ban Don from his own property, game or not. Fuck… wait till mid game, then lower yourself via rope around your waist 40 feet above court, then swing in a large arch flipping everyone off. Its America, its his property, its free speech, its his right… most can happen is a FCC violation and some minor lawsuits from people being offended, easy to squelch in court.

I stand in pure opposition to his statements, but dammit, if I was Don… the above is exactly what I would do. Try to fuck me, I would fuck you soooooooooo much harder back, due to you being in the much greater wrong.

11

It is not a freedom of speech issue. It is a breech of conduct within the contract with the franchise that is in play here. Few are privy to the terms written into the constitution and bylaws of the league and franchise, but I’d guess there is language within that contract between owners and the league that prohibits any conduct of behavior, private or public, that would do harm to the image of the league. This isn’t a criminal matter where he is being imprisoned because of something he said and we are arguing that he should not be imprisoned because of his right to freedom of speech.

He apparently broke some terms within the contract he signed with the league when he purchased the team and its membership in the franchise. He can keep the team if he wishes but that might put the teams franchise within the league in jeopardy and have catastrophic results on the teams estimated value to any would be buyer.

I would guess that between the time the recordings first played out and the time the commissioner of the league made public their course of action that a whole lot of lawyers were taking a look at the leagues position based on the contract signed by Donald Sterling between he and the league and they came to the conclusion the league did have a legal leg to stand upon.

File for divorce and give his former wife the team in the settlement. Problem solved.

12

That may be, a lot of corporate/political positions have clauses like that for at least public conversation. But if you’re going to prohibit ‘private behavior that would do harm to the image’ you may as well say “You aren’t allowed to do anything we don’t care for”, because that’s all it amounts to. It’s not like anybody is doing research or providing evidence that his actually did harm the image of the league, and I suspect that in fact it did not.

13

So far, a number of sponsors have dropped their support. That translates to a loss in revenue to the league and would likely be viewed as a damage.

And yes it may well be nothing more than “you aren’t allowed to do anything we don’t care for”, but if those are the terms of the contract that was signed then those are the terms that have been breached, and that is why he has been banned for life from participation in league activities. He can take his team out of the league if he wishes but I doubt the revenue he could generate without any other professional teams to play would be all that financially rewarding.

It is about a code of conduct that is expected by the league, and he violated that code in private and darn if it didn’t become public. I shed no tears for his trouble.

14

Mowk,

What the league gained from all this publicity and the new add campaign and slogan that they created as a result far outweighs any consequential money they’ll lose as a result of the Clippers franchise losing money.

And I while I know this thread is about Sterling, do you realize that this entire overly-publicized issue could have easily been about someone else instead? Sterling was just unfortunate that his scandal was the first they came by.

Look at the way Silver is being paraded by the NBA players, coaches, owners and even television commentators. The old commissioner, that Silver worked under for years and recently replaced, was only months ago still being villainized for blocking the Paul trade to the Lakers. And now that the NBA is supposedly unified (players, team management, franchise management, league management) would you not expect the players, at the bottom of this hierarchy, to be too unified with the various forms of management to ever insist upon better terms should they feel they need to?

15

Stuart, What you say may likely be the case but that isn’t the issue is it? That all has taken place moving forward, kudos to the league for capitalizing on the circumstance.

The categorization of it as example of “big brother” run amok or the framing of it as a violation of free speech was the focus of my comments. I simply mentioned a loss of revenue as result of a loss of sponsorship that could be spun by lawyers as a damage because another poster questioned what possible damage. I think I’ll let those who give a shit about basketball and some lawyers sort it out from here.

16

Privacy is more important than basketball.

17

Would you say it’s more important than race equality, far more important, maybe even to those naturally inclined to get the short end of the stick in those matters?

18

I would, with no hesitation.

Bottom line is, nobody here wants to stake their career on people judging every private conversation they had, that others weren’t meant to hear. Nobody here wants their freedom to be beholden to privately following whatever passes for ‘moral standards’ decades from now when they are 80. Let’s assume you’re 30 years old. Are you confident enough in what will pass for good and evil in the year 2054 that you’d be comfortable having people end your career because you said something in a private conversation that people in 2054 find offensive?

19

But is there a difference between a private person and a public personality? When the line is crossed, by choosing to cross it, are some privileges given up? Privileges are gained when such a line is crossed. Many a celebrity gets away with more than they should because of their celebrity status, part of gaining that is losing other bits.

I’m sure if some “Southern Redneck” said what Donald said the most we’d hear about it was a bunch of East and West coasters making fun of all Southerners for being inbred hicks, much like a nerd making fun of all girls for one being bad at math.

Note: everything is more important than basketball, not a good level of comparison.

20

Privacy is important. If someone recorded/leaked the tape without permission of those involved, that was wrong, and is also illegal. That person should face consequences. However, unfortunately for Mr. Sterling, no one can un-know what they now know about his views on associating with black people. And the NBA, having interviewed Mr. Sterling and confirmed his views have every right to protect their business and pressure Sterling to sell.