The Beginning Of Thought Crime Within The United States

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

ticotimes.net/2014/04/29/nba … ce-remarks

Finally our great leaders have instituted thought crime in the United States also known as illegal speak.

This will undoubtedly be the beginning hallmark of the social paradise and utopia our illustrious politicians keep speaking about concerning American progressivism.

For now on, those accused of a thought crime can lose their occupation or business ownership and be financially fined.

We all need to get on our hands and knees to give homage to the American state along with all the great political professional class that administer it.

The great American social paradise and utopia is here and now.

2

I’ve mixed feelings about all this, but it’s worth pointing out that Sterling is not accused of a crime, and he isn’t being punished by the law, so your entire phrasing of the problem is deeply misleading, as well as an oversimplification: if it was the State punishing Sterling, this would all be so much easier to condemn. Personally, I find this to be a much bigger deal:

telegraph.co.uk/technology/n … paign.html

3

The Media IS “the State”.
The State has three branches of mind; Money, Media, Medicine (psychiatric).
The State has three branches of body; Military, Mail, Medicine (physiological).

4

The NBA is clearly not the state. It is only an organization that happens to rely for 99 percent on the work of African Americans. The OP is more than misleading. Banning the guy seems beneficial to the preservation of the league and its status. What else were they going to do?

5

The corporation is doing this within the legal framework of the state which sets up a dangerous precedent for everywhere else within the nation.

6

And what’s that precedent? That if you offend people that they will be offended and act differently toward you?

7

The precedent is to target people financially and cause them to lose business ownership if they don’t cow tow the thoughts and opinions of the state or in this case powerful corporate interests. It creates an atmosphere where political correctness becomes a mandate of law.

8

You know he paid 12 mil for the team and if they force the sale he’s gonna get over 600 mil right?

But either way you’re right. Civility is a facade. We live in a jungle dude, and if you piss off all the other animals they can eat you.

9

All of that is irrelevant.

10

Why? How is he being targeted financially if he’s making over 500 mil?

11

He is irrelevant. What it is setting up as precedent for everybody else is key here.

12

I like the idea of democracy. If the govt wont enforce it on corporations, then I’m glad when the general public will.

13

you cant go to jail for what you are THINKING…

14

Democracy enforced on corporations by the government. That’s a weird idea… whatever it means.

15

No, you can go to jail for just thinking about doing something and not actually doing it. Yes, there is a fine line between contemplation and action, but justice is blind and can’t see it.

Please get jailed for sexual fantasy, such as Cannibalistic and Kidnap Fetishes, and for thinking about committing terrorist axts… can they pull it off or even really want to is secondary to the government’s supposition it has a this power constitutionally via protecting the public. Its debatable…

Smears… our democracy has protections of due process, access to the court systems, and most important, the recognition that there can be a tyranny of a majority. Just like slavery was a unjust tyranny of a minority over a majority, this is a majority over a minority. He has rights to his property, he bought it lawfully.

Only person with a apparent legal case right now would be Magic Johnson, if I recall, only he was specifically named. I dont think that stadium has been devoid of black people since the 80s.

Furthermore, its currently unknown if he just let his girlfriend sit anywhere open, or if he had his own seats, if they were ticketed or merely vip pass. This matters in a legal case, because you can be as racist and bigoted as you want in limiting your personal freedom of association. I for one choose to ban Canadians where I live, as its my home, but cant reject a Canadian a lawfully accessible job as a legal alien, or a apartment. Canadians are sick fucks, so I socially reject most until they prove their humanity… but in certain categories, larger society has deemed such wisdom as irrelevant to accessing certain kinds of contracts.

Buying a basketball ticket, renting a apartment, or refusing medical treatment because of race is illegal in the states. Refusing a bootyslave, who lacks a ticket and is present at the whim of a box owner, the right to bring a black person who likewise lacks a ticket to the box, is not.

If Smears owned the box, and said he hated blonds or Cynics, and refused me access, I couldnt seek criminal recourse, and its doubtful civil suit would be successful either, as we both possess a freedom of association, and you choose not to invite me to something you have rights to, that I myself lack rights to.

Life sucks, it sucks to be left out, but thats the law. So say we all.

16

I know about the tyranny of the majority Contra. I also know a little about property and how the bundle theory of rights applies. He didn’t buy all the rights in the bundle. He only bought some. Then he went beyond what he bought in a way that’s disparaging the rights that were retained by the league. Now he’s in some shit over it. I don’t think it’s tyranny when a majority decides to suppress hate speech. Just because a majority does something to a minority doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s tyrannical.

17

contra said
No, you can go to jail for just thinking about doing something and not actually doing it. Yes, there is a fine line between contemplation and action, but justice is blind and can’t see it.

Please get jailed for sexual fantasy, such as Cannibalistic and Kidnap Fetishes, and for thinking about committing terrorist axts… can they pull it off or even really want to is secondary to the government’s supposition it has a this power constitutionally via protecting the public. Its debatable…

turtle says

can you tell me how thinking can send you to jail…

18

Dangerous precedent??? People can get fired for just about anything and this has been true for a long time. You Think 50 years ago a black person saying bad things about White people in the hearing of their boss would keep his job? 100 years ago? Some Corporation for PR, brand-image purposes fired some seems to be a jerk. This is minor. And he is not someone who is going to be on the streets either. That people can get fired for what they say can be messed up, but it is hardly new. And are you trying to restrict the Power of Corporate employers???

Well, jeez if you Think the problems with Corporate employers started here or the trouble with Corporate employers shutting down free speech started here, you need to read some books, and really soon. (all implicit in your sense this is some kind of precedent, JOker)

19

Sure thing, here is a case of a NYC cop being arrested for his sexual fantasy, not acting on it:
masslive.com/news/index.ssf/ … or_pl.html

And yes, Smears, your political outlook suggests you are well acquainted with the tyranny of the majority. The goal is to prevent both extremes against the rights of the individual, not to smoke crack in a bar, cry that life is meaningless, and advocate mob rule by the most irresponsible means possible.

He pays 100% of his taxes on his holdings… if the IRS assessed his worth from his holdings, then one influential branch with de jure power to assess and pronounce on the nature of what is and isnt property is going to back him factually that he does, indeed, own the team. If not, then he is in for one hell of a tax refund worth far more than 600 million… for he has been paying trademark, payroll, and property taxes for some time. You know damn well civil contracts dont trump the IRS assessment. Its a damn solid base, and a fucking Albanian goatherder with no grasp of English could win this case for Don (bar approval aside).

This has The Merchant of Venice written all over it. That contract was unenforceable, for much the same reasons. No doubt the jew was quite right to feel a sense of social injustice and desire for vengeance… deep societal wrong, but none the less, he was wrong in going about trying to get a emotional fix by such a wrong headed and twisted means.

Its very easy to forget, we do this to Don in the heat of the moment, our legal system collapses. We loose our own protections to due process before the law…

People the NBA lawyers should be looking to question:

  1. Ushers… what were their instructions regarding seating and removing people of color from the stands.

  2. Ticket Box Office… were they ordered or encouraged to not sell to blacks? Of especial concern, VIP seating, which leaves a IRS trail when purchases are over 10,000 dollars. Patterns on this should emerge conclusively for either side.

  3. Security… for obvious reasons.

  4. Media Archives of sporting events, if black people consistently, game after game, for years, can be found around Don, despite evidence vip seats changed hands season after season, then you would have one hell of a self evident piece of evidence that can be expressed statistically and spatially, inferring a unconstitutional selection of sale of goods in a public place of business.

Yes, you study law. Something you didnt know about me, my family literally wrote the book on property law in the US. As noted in the past, my name isnt hard to track down, knowing Onasander is my pen name. I don’t read all those law and history books without cause, its a inherited trait in my family.

So… Merchant of Venice and all, is it really in the cause of Democracy to demand a contractual pound of flesh? Or can we act a tad bit smarter, and approach this in a rational and consistent way? We have ways of doing things smartly in this country. He owns the property, the contracts, royalties. The little, tiny bit he might not have full rights over is maybe the name clippers, or in keeping his team in the NBA.

Hell, very little maintains legally what a game really is. Teams can show up, pass ball, dribble, and intentionally never get the ball in the hoops as protest. Likewise, every team can leave the NBA in unison, starting a new league, minus Don. Very little he can do other than sue them over losses.

But no… we got to do this the shitfaced, emotional, almost certain to fail legally way.

Hence why Don wins, and we loose… because the lawyer types are doing lines on the table and not thinking clearly. At this rate, the NBA is going to have to formally apologize to Don and pay him restitution, even though this one is so damn simple to do legally.

20

It’s not about whether he owns the team or doesn’t own the team. It’s about the conditions under which he owns certain rights related to the team as per the agreements he entered into in order to get the rights to it that he has.