OT: Did the NBA just open up a can of worms?
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/04/29/boot-sterling-nba-team-owners-ma…
I posted yesterday that trying to remove Donald Sterling could back fire on the NBA as Sterling won't go quietly into the night. He's always had a chip on his shoulder and if he believes he has been unfairly targeted, as I can bet he has here right or wrong, that he could possibly use a scorched earth strategy to counter the NBA's punishment. It has already been reported that Sterling told a Fox reporter that he will not sell his team
Don't think for a minute that he's the only creepy character in the NBA. The owners have to vote to have him removed. Some of those owners might want to think twice about their votes as I am betting there are stories about them that they do not want out in the public.
And certain players should also be careful. We already know that many of them aren't the most honorable, ethical or racially tolerant as we would think.
The NBA is a very seedy place.
As they say, be careful for what you wish for.
The flip side to all of this is that the NBA guarantees that Donald will get a more than fair price for his team to leave quietly. And then Magic Johnson and his billionaire white investors will have their team.
i personally don't think sterling should have been banned for this. he should have been banned back years ago for the housing discrimination lawsuit. actions speak infinitely louder than words. i'm not too concerned about private vs. public words, as long as private conversations can be put into proper context. i personally don't think the context was even clear in this case.
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.
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.
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.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:55 PM ^
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.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:30 PM ^
...it was worth it. And it won't be bad if other instances of bigoted behavior are brought to light.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
If by "worms" you mean "removing a racist guy who is costing them money", then by all means yes.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
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.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:58 PM ^
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:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1018960/inde…
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.
April 30th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
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?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, will people continue making asinine comments on the internet?
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.
You cannot punish a person for what they think,
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.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:02 PM ^
Title VII protects individuals from employment discrimination based on national origin or religion. So...firing them would be a bad idea.
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."
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.
April 30th, 2014 at 11:38 PM ^
The NBA is a very seedy place.
This is a very ironic comment considering the sport that this blog most revolves around is college football.
“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.”
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/mayweather-suspended-clippers-owner-sterling-great-guy-article-1.1774852#ixzz30Tn7LCVM
At least he is a consistent bigot!
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2014/05/05/redick-donald-sterling-didnt-w…