Freedom of Speech

[awpitt]

If you say so. I just assumed that talking to your girlfriend, in private, about who she has sex with and who she hangs out with in public wasn't covered in the team agreement. And, I was assuming those comments, at least to him, were confidential. I also was assuming that more than a few owners and league officials very much know the guy.

Your heard ONE owner or NBA figure call for patience to let the full truth work it's way out? Anyone say "Gosh, that's not the Don I know. I am shocked. We maybe ought not rush to judgment here..."

:shrug:

Nothing one says or writes is private. I was told a long time ago to not say or write anything that I wouldn't want to be made public.

 

[Larry Gude]

Nothing one says or writes is private. I was told a long time ago to not say or write anything that I wouldn't want to be made public.

I was under the impression that her recording, in Cali, is illegal. No?

 

[glhs837]

I was under the impression that her recording, in Cali, is illegal. No?

Which might matter, were he being prosecuted by the govt, which is not the case. And I'm sure he can sure her for damages, civilly, and maybe even win a huge settlement. Not that money matters to him in that sense, not that she has any for him to get. She will live on as arm candy for some other, more cautious rich guy. Having no assets, it wont matter to her at all.

 

[luvmygdaughters]

IMHO, it depends on who is hollering racist. Because both Deen and Sterling referred to the black race in a private conversation, they have been ostracized from society. But, if the racist remark was reversed, say Michael Jordan asked his girlfriend not to bring her white boyfriend to the games, would he be held to the same ridicule as Deen and Sterling?

 

[Larry Gude]

Which might matter, were he being prosecuted by the govt, which is not the case. And I'm sure he can sure her for damages, civilly, and maybe even win a huge settlement. Not that money matters to him in that sense, not that she has any for him to get. She will live on as arm candy for some other, more cautious rich guy. Having no assets, it wont matter to her at all.

Agreed. I was just speaking to the technical legal issue. For Sterling, this was a gotcha and the legality of it is irrelevant.

 

[KDENISE977]

Good read.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/randazza-sterling-privacy/?c=&page=0

 

[Toxick]

Mr. Stern, Ms. Dean and whoever is next did not commit a crime. The govt took no action against them. They are not in jail. They have not been fined by the govt.

I assume, by Mr. Stern, you mean Mr. Sterling. The rest of this post assumes that this assumption is true.


While I technically have no argument with your sentiments here - the jury is still out on the final disposition of Sterling's problems, and whether or not the gubmint will play a roll in his final punishment. I have no problem with the NBA sticking it to his crotchety old nasty ass with their $2.5 million fine and life-time ban. What has my rapt attention, however, is the fact that the NBA appears to be in motion with regard to forcing him to sell The Clippers. Sterling has told them to shove it.

Next step: Court.

It is by no means a sure bet that the court will do the right thing and tell the NBA they can't tell people what to do with their privately owned property/institutions, however satisfying that may be to those with leanings toward immediate gratification.


However:
The government has decided they are now allowed to force citizens to buy ####. (see also: ACA, alias Obamacare)
The next logical step is to allow themselves to force citizens to sell ####.



And more of our freedom goes straight down the ####ter. I wish there was a truly free society left somewhere on this god-forsaken planet.

If you are going to make stupid, idiotic comments, you deserve to be ridiculed.

I'm going to remember you said this.

 

[glhs837]

I assume, by Mr. Stern, you mean Mr. Sterling. The rest of this post assumes that this assumption is true.


While I technically have no argument with your sentiments here - the jury is still out on the final disposition of Sterling's problems, and whether or not the gubmint will play a roll in his final punishment. I have no problem with the NBA sticking it to his crotchety old nasty ass with their $2.5 million fine and life-time ban. What has my rapt attention, however, is the fact that the NBA appears to be in motion with regard to forcing him to sell The Clippers. Sterling has told them to shove it.

Next step: Court.

It is by no means a sure bet that the court will do the right thing and tell the NBA they can't tell people what to do with their privately owned property/institutions, however satisfying that may be to those with leanings toward immediate gratification.


However:
The government has decided they are now allowed to force citizens to buy ####. (see also: ACA, alias Obamacare)
The next logical step is to allow themselves to force citizens to sell ####.



And more of our freedom goes straight down the ####ter. I wish there was a truly free society left somewhere on this god-forsaken planet.




I'm going to remember you said this.

Have you seen the contract with the league that owners sign when they buy teams, which are a part of the league? Best I can find on it is here........

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/...g-support-but-removing-sterling-wont-be-easy/

which does seem to indicate forcing a sale isnt in the cards, legally.

 

[Toxick]

Have you seen the contract with the league that owners sign when they buy teams, which are a part of the league? Best I can find on it is here........

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/...g-support-but-removing-sterling-wont-be-easy/

which does seem to indicate forcing a sale isnt in the cards, legally.

"Legally". I'm sure you're absolutely positively correct.





But then, physically forcing someone to buy insurance wasn't in the cards legally - until the Supreme Court bent us over and ram-rodded us last year.

 

[Larry Gude]

What has my rapt attention, however, is the fact that the NBA appears to be in motion with regard to forcing him to sell The Clippers. Sterling has told them to shove it.

Next step: Court.

It is by no means a sure bet that the court will do the right thing and tell the NBA they can't tell people what to do with their privately owned property/institutions, however satisfying that may be to those with leanings toward immediate gratification.

However:
The government has decided they are now allowed to force citizens to buy ####. (see also: ACA, alias Obamacare)
The next logical step is to allow themselves to force citizens to sell ####.

And more of our freedom goes straight down the ####ter. I wish there was a truly free society left somewhere on this god-forsaken planet.

That is absurd. The NBAssociation is just that and, as such, it has rules and by laws and is not a right. If I own a McDonalds, I can't just do whatever the hell I like. I can't start selling Whoppers and I can't say things that harm the brand and expect my association to not care based on the franchise being MY property. It's an association.

Don Sterling is going to make out like a champ on this, pushing back just enough to sell his $17 million franchise (IIRC) for something between $500 mil and $1 billion. The other owners will push back enough to make it as less of a fiasco as they can.

There is no argument to be made that this has anything to do with the government making us buy, or sell, a thing if the NBA is successful in getting rid of a franchisee they deem unacceptable because he has bad breathe let alone his interesting positions on race and what he deems acceptable, having sex with 'them' and what is not, being seen in public with them.

This guy has had it coming for a long time and that is why this came down so hard so fast.

What is interesting to me is that a number of long time owners who have known Sterling for some time, are getting cold feet worrying about things they may have said or will say.

Now, THAT is interesting.

 

[Larry Gude]

But then, physically forcing someone to buy insurance wasn't in the cards legally - until the Supreme Court bent us over and ram-rodded us last year.

The court gave the executive and legislature a wide berth. That is for sure, but, what they said was 'this is a turd but, a constitutional turd. You folks feel free to clean your mess up. In the mean time, it's your turd."

The problem with the ACA is the GOP. The Roberts court did not forbid them from 'selling' this mess. The D's aren't the small gov party.

 

[Toxick]

That is for sure, but, what they said was 'this is a turd but, a constitutional turd. You folks feel free to clean your mess up. In the mean time, it's your turd."

And by saying that turd was constitutional, that's how they screwed us.


Telling the Executive and Legislative Branches that they could constitutionally force The People to buy #### has ramifications that are staggering.

The problem with the ACA is the GOP.

The problem with the ACA is that it's a massive pile of steaming and bilious ####. The GOP is simply a cog in that defication-machine.

 

[Larry Gude]

And by saying that turd was constitutional, that's how they screwed us.

Telling the Executive and Legislative Branches that they could constitutionally force The People to buy #### has ramifications that are staggering.

The problem with the ACA is that it's a massive pile of steaming and bilious ####. The GOP is simply a cog in that defication-machine.

Who is 'they'? Not the court. All they did was rule on the constitutionality and, as argued, it passed. That does not mean it can't be undone. The GOP was given back power, specifically, to get rid of it.

 

[PsyOps]

That is absurd. The NBAssociation is just that and, as such, it has rules and by laws and is not a right. If I own a McDonalds, I can't just do whatever the hell I like. I can't start selling Whoppers and I can't say things that harm the brand and expect my association to not care based on the franchise being MY property. It's an association.

Don Sterling is going to make out like a champ on this, pushing back just enough to sell his $17 million franchise (IIRC) for something between $500 mil and $1 billion. The other owners will push back enough to make it as less of a fiasco as they can.

There is no argument to be made that this has anything to do with the government making us buy, or sell, a thing if the NBA is successful in getting rid of a franchisee they deem unacceptable because he has bad breathe let alone his interesting positions on race and what he deems acceptable, having sex with 'them' and what is not, being seen in public with them.

This guy has had it coming for a long time and that is why this came down so hard so fast.

What is interesting to me is that a number of long time owners who have known Sterling for some time, are getting cold feet worrying about things they may have said or will say.

Now, THAT is interesting.

Okay, but the government (Reid) injected itself into it. It mounted pressure on the NBA to do something. I read into this as “If you (the NBA) don’t do something about this, we will”. Sterling had no desire in selling the team. Now he’s being forced to; all over words he said in private. This sends a message that you’re not entitled to your opinion, not matter how ugly that opinion may be.

Remember the ‘Macaca’ ordeal?
Remember the ‘Niggardly’ ordeal?

We can go down the list of where one side makes so-called controversial comments and is run out of town; while the other side does worse and gets a pass. This is nothing more than instituting a ‘thought police’ and going after those of a particular persuasion you disagree with and destroying their lives. Rest assured while Sterling and Dean, and other’s lives are being ruined, the lives of people like Sharpton and Jackson will flourish.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, but the government (Reid) injected itself into it. It mounted pressure on the NBA to do something. I read into this as “If you (the NBA) don’t do something about this, we will”. Sterling had no desire in selling the team. .

Wha??? My recollection is that the NBA was all over this in a matter of hours, not even days and not because some Senator harrumphed over it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay, but the government (Reid) injected itself into it. It mounted pressure on the NBA to do something. I read into this as “If you (the NBA) don’t do something about this, we will”. Sterling had no desire in selling the team. Now he’s being forced to; all over words he said in private. This sends a message that you’re not entitled to your opinion, not matter how ugly that opinion may be.

Remember the ‘Macaca’ ordeal?
Remember the ‘Niggardly’ ordeal?

We can go down the list of where one side makes so-called controversial comments and is run out of town; while the other side does worse and gets a pass. This is nothing more than instituting a ‘thought police’ and going after those of a particular persuasion you disagree with and destroying their lives. Rest assured while Sterling and Dean, and other’s lives are being ruined, the lives of people like Sharpton and Jackson will flourish.

Do you sincerely see Sterling as a victim here?

 

[GURPS]

Do you sincerely see Sterling as a victim here?

yes, his Asian mistresses illegally recorded the conversation, and apparently tried to blackmail him to boot

 

[PsyOps]

Do you sincerely see Sterling as a victim here?

I think our overly-sensitive, politically correct society has gotten so thin-skinned that it's becoming impossible to predict what will offend someone. Not even words you say in private are private. My thoughts escape my lips, my life is screwed. God bless America - Land of the free.