Donald Sterling owner of LA Clippers

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

BULLSHIT! What "rule" has been broken? Are you seriously comparing this to dahmer? My knee is jerking because I'd like to kick some sense into you.

You sure are good at screaming BULLSHIT. I made the, admittedly, outrageous analogy because it serves well to make a point: you can't decide on your own what laws to follow and not follow based on degree of the crime. All this commentary on how it was a private conversation, and that it is illegal to tape such a conversation, is making an argument based on law. Privacy law. And if you argue on the basis of privacy law in one case, you can't willy nilly switch gears with another case where privacy law gets broken.

But that's all un-important, due to the NBA having the legal right to punish Sterling based on its constitution and by-laws. That's the real important thing here. And you commented that it's not fair to do this to Sterling...look at all the players who break the law and don't get kicked out. I responded to that, and you didn't care to respond to what I said, and I'm pretty sure it's because you can't. But, you sure can yell and scream BULLSHIT.

Here's an old joke:

Super rich guy is at a bar. He says to the lady next to him "would you have sex with me for a million dollars"

The lady thinks for a moment and say's, "yea, for a million dollars I'll have sex with you"

The old rich man says, "Would you have sex with me for $10"

The lady gets all upset and says "what kind of girl do you think I am"

The rich guy says "we've already determined that. Now we're haggling over the price."

Not exactly on point...but your treatment of privacy law applying differently to two different cases reminded me of it.


.

 

[bentom187]

yet what trumps the other... the person's privacy rights, or the evidence of wrong doing:

Privacy rights, and there was no wrong doing in a criminal sense, its just some old guy ranting and he got exposed because this girl was trying to A. ruin his career or B. trying to extort money and gifts from him. This is not murder we are talking about which is a crime ,it's just a violation of the NBA's constitution.

Seeing as how she did violate his privacy he might be able to sue her for damages. I think I seen an article that his wife is actually going to sue. Ill have to find it.


He signed the NBAs agreement so he's accountable to them.

That "Secret" NBA Constitution Is Now Online

The Commissioner shall have the power to suspend for a definite or indefinite period, or to impose a fine not exceeding $1,000,000, or inflict both such suspension and fine upon any person who, in his opinion, shall have been guilty of conduct prejudicial or detrimental to the Association.

 

[HOVAH2.0]

As a black guy, I can sense a racist men and women I just dont associate with them. the NBA knew about his tendences long before they allowed to buy a team. I dont think he shouldve lost his team for this particular act, the NBA is getting rid of him because of the all the attention.

But the biggest question I have about this entire event is, what kind of skills does the mistress have in the bedroom?! She must have some super pu&&y and crazy throat skills! His wife sued the bitch and now the same bitch has caused him to loose his team!!

I bet he wont stop fucking her, I bet he leaves his wife..
White boys are always getting wiped by the "hood hoe".

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

Somebody important in the LA chapter of NAACP made ALOT of money I'm guessing 2 lifetime achievement awards!? One of the reps was on espn radio said " you cannot buy the NAACP BUT (always that but lol then the truth) each local NAACP office does rely on local contributions " Wonder how much Donald Tokowitz donated

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/granderson-naacp-sterling/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

 

[stoned-trout]

like it or not it was a private conversation and the person who recorded and released it should be sued.... but hey oprah might buy the team now lol.....the guy is a known racist asshole but that aint illegal......in this day and age if your a high profile person you better watch what you do and say or it will come back to bite your ass......theres always gonna be racists black and white and every other race....

 

[symbiote420]

Don't people go to jail for what they say in private?
Jail = punishment, right!? You get caught talking about planting a bomb whether in private or public see what happens to you .....no matter what color you are!!!

 

[theJointedOne]

mumia did a great essay on this

no one noticed or even mentioned how the 'supreme' court knocked down voting rights, and more recently fair opportunities

yet the media gets wet when they see this sterling saga, and makes it into top news,

when in reality it has not much effect on more than a couple people, yet millions getting fucked and no one notices

lol

 

[Ez Rider]

You sure are good at screaming BULLSHIT. I made the, admittedly, outrageous analogy because it serves well to make a point: you can't decide on your own what laws to follow and not follow based on degree of the crime. All this commentary on how it was a private conversation, and that it is illegal to tape such a conversation, is making an argument based on law. Privacy law. And if you argue on the basis of privacy law in one case, you can't willy nilly switch gears with another case where privacy law gets broken.

But that's all un-important, due to the NBA having the legal right to punish Sterling based on its constitution and by-laws. That's the real important thing here. And you commented that it's not fair to do this to Sterling...look at all the players who break the law and don't get kicked out. I responded to that, and you didn't care to respond to what I said, and I'm pretty sure it's because you can't. But, you sure can yell and scream BULLSHIT.

Here's an old joke:

Super rich guy is at a bar. He says to the lady next to him "would you have sex with me for a million dollars"

The lady thinks for a moment and say's, "yea, for a million dollars I'll have sex with you"

The old rich man says, "Would you have sex with me for $10"

The lady gets all upset and says "what kind of girl do you think I am"

The rich guy says "we've already determined that. Now we're haggling over the price."

Not exactly on point...but your treatment of privacy law applying differently to two different cases reminded me of it.


.

The response I already gave is more than your ridiculous arguments deserve I'm still not clear on EXACTLY what "rule" was broken anyway. Oh well, hypocrites will be hypocrites.

 

[D. B. Doober]

The head of the local NAACP was fired as they were about to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award

Sterling has prostate cancer now

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

I'm still not clear on EXACTLY what "rule" was broken anyway.

The "rule" that was broken was spelled out very clearly by Adam Silver the commissioner of the NBA. It was discussed in quite a few posts in this thread. It's quite simple, and if you don't understand it, you must have some problem with reading comprehension. Oh well...

 

[Stoner4Life]

The head of the local NAACP was fired as they were about to give Sterling a lifetime achievement award

Leon Jenkins resigned, interestingly enough the NAACP had given Sterling that same lifetime achievement award back in '09 as well.......

 

[gaiusmarius]

i think those saying this guy should have got his come upance a long time ago make a fair point. he's been fined and in trouble for his public views before. that he should now be in trouble for comments made in private is beyond ironic and is, as has been pointed out, society rushing down the slippery slope once again.

i mean come on, that bylaw is so ambiguous that it could be used to punish anyone for pretty much anything. also he did not say that stuff to hurt the league, he thought he was having a private conversation after all so had no reason to consider that his words would damage the league.

i'm definitely no friend of racists, as was said they had many good reasons to get rid of him before for stuff he did and said in public on the record for many years. so to me it's about the principle of freedom of speech!

the whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular views. it's not polite and popular speech that needs defending, it's definitely not the prevailing views that need protecting, think about it. so yeah the only limitation of free speech is the fire in the theater example. it's real sign of the times to read how many people misunderstand what free speech actually means and why it was considered sacrosanct by the founders of the US. if you don't allow your neighbor to spout his racist views, you will soon not be allowed to counter his bigotry or share your own views, the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to make their own choices and recognize what speech they will listen to and what not, without any government rules and regulations to limit the discourse.

 

[rives]

the whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular views. it's not polite and popular speech that needs defending, it's definitely not the prevailing views that need protecting, think about it.

Bingo.

This is the exactly why the ACLU has become active in gun rights lawsuits. Although I'm sure that the whole 2nd Amendment concept is anathema to most of their members, it is a right that needs protection from people who consider their own path to be the only correct one for society.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

What about the NBA's right to enforce a legal contract that Sterling signed? Previous posts have identified the specific language regarding owners doing things that are detrimental the the integrity of the league, and things that will potentially affect the NBA's stature in the world community. Also, the contract spells out the commissioner's wide latitude in deciding on the punishment to apply when the contract is violated by one of the owner's. Shouldn't the NBA have the freedom to enforce a legal contract?

 

[rives]

The terms of that contract weren't even known when this thread was started - the NBA has refused to divulge the details for years. Obviously they have the legal right to pursue this in just about any manner that they choose, considering how nebulous the "contract" is. That, however, doesn't make it right in my view. The man has been a bigot for years and it was perfectly acceptable to both the NBA and the NAACP. Who is the hypocrite here?

 

[gaiusmarius]

exactly the contract gives incredibly wide latitude to punish just about anyone for anything he deems to have harmed the league. to me it's more about his intent, did he intend to hurt the league? did he have any idea that he'd be breaking any contract on the phone to his GF? like i said before his bigoted views can and will not be defended by me. but should he be punished for those racist statements? no, as long as they are only statements, they are protected. when he stopped certain races renting his properties, he went over to actions and he was punished. but this is not a case of racist action being taken its a case of speech and private speech at that. so much as i think he's a horrible excuse for a human being and deserves what ever he gets, he does not deserve it for this private phone convo, not according to my understanding of the constitution.

 

[Sisu]

These kinds of threads are always useful, and I mean that sincerely.

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

All of our Black leaders in congress or not have been in the pocket for the last 50 years... they are rich n$ggers that jump like monkeys, for the money.. he he he...

But man, what a "Throat Game" that bitch must have!.........

you sure you're black hovah never met another black man that uses er to describe themselves or monkeys but nice try. EVEN brothas from the south don't do shit like that.

 

[bentom187]

i think those saying this guy should have got his come upance a long time ago make a fair point. he's been fined and in trouble for his public views before. that he should now be in trouble for comments made in private is beyond ironic and is, as has been pointed out, society rushing down the slippery slope once again.

i mean come on, that bylaw is so ambiguous that it could be used to punish anyone for pretty much anything. also he did not say that stuff to hurt the league, he thought he was having a private conversation after all so had no reason to consider that his words would damage the league.

i'm definitely no friend of racists, as was said they had many good reasons to get rid of him before for stuff he did and said in public on the record for many years. so to me it's about the principle of freedom of speech!

the whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular views. it's not polite and popular speech that needs defending, it's definitely not the prevailing views that need protecting, think about it. so yeah the only limitation of free speech is the fire in the theater example. it's real sign of the times to read how many people misunderstand what free speech actually means and why it was considered sacrosanct by the founders of the US. if you don't allow your neighbor to spout his racist views, you will soon not be allowed to counter his bigotry or share your own views, the whole point is that people are supposed to be free to make their own choices and recognize what speech they will listen to and what not, without any government rules and regulations to limit the discourse.

Soon to be a thing of the past thanks to the statist. There will only be one opinion and it will be government approved. Therefore assumed to be benevolent. Just like the war on drugs. I'm so glad this country is run by sociopaths. Now we don't have to hear anything not sanctified by their propaganda outlets. What would we do without them.

Video: New “Hate Crime” Bill Will Attempt To Control Speech On Internet, Radio and TV

(Sorry video is at the link ,there is no way to embed other video's other than youtube)

Senator Ed Markey claims that “hate speech” is fueling crimes in the United States, which is why he is pushing a new bill to strengthen controls on “hate speech” on broadcast and cable TV as well as the internet.

In this video Ben explains why Markey’s claims about the need for protection from this kind of speech in media is unnecessary.

H.R. 3878: Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014

Cosponsors
29 cosponsors (29D) (show)


Cárdenas, Tony [D-CA29]

Chu, Judy [D-CA27]

Honda, Michael “Mike” [D-CA17]

Kind, Ron [D-WI3]

Kuster, Ann [D-NH2]

Maloney, Carolyn [D-NY12]

Meeks, Gregory [D-NY5]

Norton, Eleanor [D-DC0]

Pierluisi, Pedro [D-PR0]

Pocan, Mark [D-WI2]

Rush, Bobby [D-IL1]

Carson, André [D-IN7]

Luján, Ben [D-NM3]

Serrano, José [D-NY15]

Swalwell, Eric [D-CA15]

Farr, Sam [D-CA20]

Lowenthal, Alan [D-CA47]

Murphy, Patrick [D-FL18]

Wilson, Frederica [D-FL24]

Clarke, Yvette [D-NY9]

Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL8]

Lewis, John [D-GA5]

Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA19]

Moran, James “Jim” [D-VA8]

DeLauro, Rosa [D-CT3]

DelBene, Suzan [D-WA1]

Edwards, Donna [D-MD4]

Lee, Barbara [D-CA13]

Napolitano, Grace [D-CA32]

S. 2219: Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014

Cosponsors none

Additional report.
Feds want to scour Net, media for 'hate speech'

If two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”

This according to the text of a new bill from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes,” stated a news release from Markey’s office.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

exactly the contract gives incredibly wide latitude to punish just about anyone for anything he deems to have harmed the league. to me it's more about his intent, did he intend to hurt the league? did he have any idea that he'd be breaking any contract on the phone to his GF? like i said before his bigoted views can and will not be defended by me. but should he be punished for those racist statements? no, as long as they are only statements, they are protected. when he stopped certain races renting his properties, he went over to actions and he was punished. but this is not a case of racist action being taken its a case of speech and private speech at that. so much as i think he's a horrible excuse for a human being and deserves what ever he gets, he does not deserve it for this private phone convo, not according to my understanding of the constitution.

I am not a lawyer. I can't really argue legal specifics. But I do know one "general" thing... signed contracts carry significant legal weight. Unless you are an attorney, I somehow doubt that your reasoning above is based in/on legal reality, more likely it is just your layman's opinion. Same with what Rives said in his post above yours.

I'm not going to get into arguing about the legal specifics of contract law, because that is beyond my ability. But, Adam Silver is an attorney, and has an unlimited amount of legal advisors to help him understand if he has a legal right to what the NBA is pursuing. I would have to bet that he and the NBA wouldn't be hitting Sterling this hard unless it would stand up in a court of law.