Blame it on gangsta rap...a problem to this GREAT nation since 1776.
Blame it on gangsta rap...a problem to this GREAT nation since 1776.
As Silver said, "Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views."
As for the slippery slope argument that people have put forward, what you're saying in effect is that people are too stupid to use their own judgement when handling these sorts of matters. It's completely ridiculous.
Not to get too far into the realm of politics, but Richard DeVos owns the Orlando Magic and his feelings about the LGBT community pretty closely mirror Donald Sterling's feelings about black people.
Dan Gilbert who owns the Cleveland Cavaliers made a great chunk of his fortune peddling in subprime loans which ultimately helped lead to an economic collapse.
Mikhail Prohkorov likely has had people murdered. He rose to power after the collapse of the Soviet Union grabbing billions in state owned assets for micro-pennies on the dollar leaving a pool of destruction and homeless, starving Russians in his wake. He's got KGB connections and is a close personal friend of Vladimir Putin.
These aren't a bunch of good guys, but no one is calling for the outster of all of them because most of them have been able to keep their views or shitty behavior to themselves and haven't damaged the reputation of the league by alienating sponsors, fans, television, workers, and the other owners.
especially considering that adam silver and the nba are painting their decision purely as a moral decision, and have not really acknowledged the money that sterling's words could potentially cost the nba from lost sponsors.
if you're going to evict owners on a moral basis, then you evict people when they've done morally deplorable things, not just when it costs the nba damage. putting the onus on the media to be your moral watchdog is a terrible plan.
Yes, but they are making it look like a moral issue because that is good for business. It is a business decision, 100%, the ban, the fine, the way they are choosing to portray it.
Silver can't go up there and say, "Donald Sterling is costing the NBA money, so I'm banning him." That statement would damage the image of the league and cost them money.
i'm just saying that a ethical system of relying on the media to determine when an owner violates moral standards and then convince the masses is a dubious system.
I'd argue that the media isn't serving as the NBA's moral watchdog. The NBA is entirely amoral. The media is a watchdog of sorts, though, bringing to the NBAs attention the things that the fans won't put up with.
Nothing new. Politicians have to backpedal all the time after they float an idea to the media to test the public perception. Same for businesses. Microsoft had to scrap a lot of their plans for the new Xbox when the market told them they wouldn't buy the product as planned.
guess it just grinds my gears to hear the media singing the high praises of adam silver, when in reality the nba should be held accountable for letting this clown stay in the league for so long.
With this I agree. The NBA should be ashamed of themselves. Instead they will get a pat on the back. The funny thing is they also deserve the pat. Better late than never.
One of two reasons why I like liquoured up folks...*alcohol* reveals,what the *heart* conceals. Does it ALL the time,too.
Some,not all,people seem to think that freedom of speech is akin to diplomatic immunity is nonsense of the highest order.
...it was worth it. And it won't be bad if other instances of bigoted behavior are brought to light.
If by "worms" you mean "removing a racist guy who is costing them money", then by all means yes.
Can they ban the NBA for life?
This would be my choice.
I haven't watched it since the bad boys/magic/bird days.
The NBA doesn't really play basketball anymore.
I kind of feel the same way, but what else am I going to watch. Baseball is not worth watching (except for the big rivalries) until the playoffs. And as bad as the reffing is, the first round of these playoffs may be the best ever.
No, the NBA just opened a can of whoop-ass.
The guys is an epic scumbag and this should have happened way before this latest incident. Everyone is talking about the 2009 ESPN thing but I remember reading this article way back in 2000 in SI:
At that point he was just cheap and tawdry and incompetent; there's nothing in there about getting sued for harassment, or basing housing decisions on the race of his tenants.
For some reason I remembered asian slurs he had used about his tenants in that article but I'm not seeing them anymore. Must have read it elsewhere but it was around the same timeframe... you're correct though this article is more about incompentence and scummy business practices.
Unless Srerling has a Nixon-esque library of audio recordings of other current owners saying similar dispicable things, it won't matter what he says.
His reputation and liability are in the dumpster and on fire. Nobody will believe, or care, about anything he has to say unless there is something concrete behind it be it audio/video recordings or some sort of consistent correspondence.
Where's the popcorn. I want popcorn
to affect billionaires--and so swiftly--is very encouraging.
the problem is that the masses are gettting dumber and dumber, and are basically controlled by a different group of billionaires.
I hadn't heard about this. What happened?
says a racist comment about an owner or league official, does he get banned for life?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, will people continue making asinine comments on the internet?
One is an employer and in a position of power over people, the other is not. that is a big difference in the eyes of the law and society
but has above mentioned the Nets owner? Dude came in doing interviews where he all but bagged about how he made his money: straight up, post-cold war Russian mobster turned "salesmen"and then business tycoon. Guy certainly has mass graves full to capacity as a result of how he made the money to buy his team. Yet, he was welcomed. IIRC, he MAY have been given an "ixnay on the being a fuggin Russian mobster-ay" by Stern. Maybe. So, not defending him one bit but a closet racist and open pike if shit gets a life ban but an arms dealing murderer is A-ok? GTFO, NBA.
I don't feel even a little bit bad for him. But I really don't like where we're heading here. This is straight out of 1984. Thought police. He didn't violate anyone's rights .
no matter how vile you find those thoughts.
Do you have any friends? Do you ever "give them the business"? Are any of your friends black? I can tell you that I have said(in fun) some vile, vile things to black/hispanic/asian friends in response to some vile, vile things they have said about people of my race/occupation/upbringing. Those were some of the largest belly laughs we've had. Now what if that bar had been wiretapped.
All that surprise and relief we shared because we could laugh about this stuff...That gets taken out of context, we could find ourselves out of a job and ostrasized. How would you like it if everyone who had an axe to grind with you wiretapped your home, your locker room, the bar you hang out at? That is the precedent we're looking at.
People should and CAN only be judged by what they do. Just as an example...I can think of at least one couple of importance in this country who...Let's say it's not very hard to find evidence that they don't think much of white people. Let's say that these people were long time followers of a known bigot. That said bigot married them and baptized their children. Should that couple be removed from their place of importance because of how we interpret what they think? Can we?
The answer is no. I am no lawyer, but common sense tells me the guy is going to sue the NBA and win. He'll probably fire the payroll department and declare that everyone in the organization be paid by personal check signed "Donald Sterling, your Daddy".
The NBA probably had to do what they did as a PR move so the players wouldn't strike and the media can just blame the Legal System when they give him his team and privelidges back. People seem to think the guy is an "employee" of the NBA, and that he can be fired. Thing is, its his team. He owns it. This is more like getting evicted by your homeowner's association. I'm pretty sure if he wants to run the team back into the ground that's his perogative.
People also seem to think that everyone is entitled to do what they want and that there can't be repercussions because they "own it."
A lawyer would ask under what conditions does he own the team? Is there a mechanism in place under which the league can remove him? Are their certain criteria that can force sale of a team. And so on.
There are legal documents that govern the structure of the league and address these situations. Especially in a setting where value of a team is based upon the entire league itself, these type of things are important.
Between this and the Northwestern union issues the internet has become even more abuzz with people talking about lawsuits and legal issues without actually knowing the facts.
Read the documents, then maybe form an opinion.
He may sue, but there is no way I'd ever suggest that my common sense could answer such a complex legal question without having a better understanding of all the facts
They can be spelled out to a T. They could demand in writing that all owners wear red polka dots on alternating Tuesdays. But if those rules infringe on a person's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness they will be overturned in a heartbeat. You cannot punish a person for what they think. There is not a chance that this holds up in court. God help us all if it does.
The league can punish that person for their thoughts if their thoughts effect the bottom line. There were apparently many sponsors backing out due to the PR backlash and whether you like it or not, that's money out of the window. Sucks for Sterling, but he is a business man so I'm sure he understands.
Unwittingly I move to an anti-Semite neighborhood. Business has really slowed since the local patrons found out that the majority of my staff is Jewish. My establishment is suffering because of the local perception of my staff's beliefs. So you're saying that if I fire them, they don't have a case for wrongful termination?
Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination based on national origin or religion. So...firing them would be a bad idea.
I am going to guess that it protects against prosecution for beliefs too. The difference being that while we may not agree with Judaic beliefs, we at least respect them. That is not the case with Mr. Sterling. But who decides which beliefs we are going to protect? Do we appoint a Ministry of Religion? Maybe a catch all Ministry of beliefs to decide for us? Just so we're clear, are we going to force the thought criminals into re-education camps, or just disappear them?
For what "beliefs"? Against prosecution from who? Protects who against said prosecution?
Title VII and other relevant employment laws protect against discrimintion based on a protected category. Those are defined by statute and have been fleshed out in great detail in case law. So in answer to "who decides which beliefs we are going to protect" the answer is the US government.
I think you're conflating criminal and civil issue.I have not defended any sort of criminal prosecution in this case, so the references to though police and re-education camps seem silly (at least they're not double speak).
You're also apparently under the false impression that people are "protected in their beliefs" from any sort of non-criminal action. That's simply not the case. Unless the NBA is violating a law in enforcing its governing documents and procedures for removing Mr. Sterling, they are within their rights. Make mistakes and people may choose not to associate with you. Do it at your own perogative if you own an entity worth hundreds of millions of dollars and take action that may draw the ire of those in your association.
I realize you're not a lawyer, but you're conflating a lot of different issues. "Life, liberty, and happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence and is not some sort of Constituational right.
This happens all the time in the employment context. My happiness may involve wearing jean cut off shorts to work, but my employer forbids that. That "infringes on my pursuit of happiness" but if I want to be employed then tough luck (as long as the rule does not violate a law, rule, regulation, etc.) I'll just wear them to the stadium on Saturdays. It's not exactly identical to this situation, but the concept is the same.
I am unclear of who the "you" is refering to. The NBA? Me? The government? Anyone?
If it's the NBA, then it depends on what the rules of the voluntary organization they set up say. Contrary to your statement, you may be able to "punish" individuals for their toughts. While Mr. Sterling certainly is entitled to his thoughts, a voluntary business association that has specific guidelines governing the conduct (and removal mechanism) of its owners is not obligated to keep him in the group.
You may have a right to your thoughts, but that does not mean there will be no repercussions.
And, in my opinion, I doubt this will be "overtuend in a heartbeat."
But is a deeply flawed one. We are talking about a seizure of property. A seizure that is occurring in the absence of a crime or any admissible wrongdoing. You talk about the NBA "losing profits" but you fail to realize that they are HIS profits. Someone said that he might have lost 10% of his profits when their sponsors pulled out. They're still raking in money, that argument just doesn't hold water. What percentage of that does the NBA even get?
I am curious about who is paying Blake Griffin's salary in the interim. They can really just seize his business and spend his money as they see fit?
The government is not seizing his property. There is no discussion of a crime on his part. This is completely irrelevant. He owns a team subject to rules of the NBA. He (allegedly) broke those rules. He also would be forced to SELL (not have seized) his team. I'm sure he'll get a good amount of money for it.
Again, the NBA can defend this action if they are not acting illegally. If they have league rules set up in place and follow those procedures it is likely they are acting appropriately. His ownership of the team was subject to those rules.
Yes they are "his" profits, but there is NBA revenue sharing, though I'm not familiar with the specifics. Also, there's a good argument that the NBA's image as a whole (and therefore other teams TV contracts, ticket sales, etc.) will be hurt by associating with Mr. Sterling. Finally, there's probably rules in place for owner conduct detrimental to the league, or simply allowing him to be removed for any non-discriminatory reason.
He might challenge all of this. People often do if they don't like how something is playing out, but, in my opinion, he'd probably lose.
Sterling was not punished for what he said or thought, he was punished because he causing the business (I.e. The nba) to lose lots of money and respect.
...and give Sterling a pass because his privacy was violated.
Both were wrong and both should face the penalty for their actions. Period.
Send her to jail or fine her...whatever the penalty is. If Sterling chooses to press charges - but let him decide. He's sued everyone else, he knows the process.
He's facing his. He'll decide if she should face hers.
Boom. Done. Move on.
I think it goes back to the same idea people have that the 1st Amendment provides a person protection from non-governmental entities.
I think they see this as a piece of evidence that is inadmissible in court because it was found without a search warrant. But this isn't court. The NBA doesn't need a warrant.
The solution is so simple it is startling to realize that people don't understand. Sterling is punished by the association he is a member of, according to its written rules. Stiviano, if she recorded him illegally, will be punished by the state the offense occurred in according to its written laws. Two offenses, two punishments. Duh.
“Donald Sterling, he’s been getting a lot of negative press,” Mayweather told reporters. “He’s always treated me with the utmost respect. He has always invited me to games. Always.”
At least he is a consistent bigot!