| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The right of freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want within loose limits of harm and safety: and it does not apply only to laws passed by congress. For example, I could call you a moronic left winger and you could call me a fanatical right winger. Neither of us has the right to censor or punish the other for doing so. The NBA, by its attempt to take away both Mr. Sterling's right of free speech and his property in the form of ownership of the LA Clippers is depriving him both of his speech and his property: and is sending a message to the entire nation that political correctness will be enforced at the expense of free speech. Sadly, we seem to be becoming a nation in which spying ,political correctness, and character assassination is being employed more frequently and more vituperatively. Note also that the NBA is effectively a monopoly in the area of U.S. professional basketball and I assume that any lawsuit(s) filed by Mr. Sterling will also challenge the lawfulness of the NBA's actions on the basis of this as well as on the grounds of free speech. If the NBA was so afraid of the harm that Mr. Sterling could possibly cause to its own sterling (pun intended)reputation, then it should have investigated his credentials and suitability for team ownership before they let him buy the team in the first place.
Pretty much all of this is between non-quite-right and patently false.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's put this in another way. We all (well, I do at least) play Pathfinder.
Let's take the D&D moral panic of the early to mid 80s and apply it today. Let's say that they went a step further and decided that they would kick us out of their communities, fire us from our jobs, and not do business with us (inclusive of no buying food, water, or anything else) because they consider us all devil-worshippers.
They feel the social contract we have with society is violated, and because of the shunning, of course no one wants to do business or let us near them.
Is this right?
How about if it spread to those not on these forums who haven't really said anything. What if it was also to those who were LGBT, for simply being that...they were ostracized (real situation, it has already happened)...is that right?
How about if you were a Christian, or Muslim, or other religion and were told you could not be hired or have a job and they didn't want to do business with you (true story too, has happened in the past and is happening in some nations today)...is that right?
It doesn't matter if you made it public or not, you stated it in a private conversation...and hence had to pay the societal costs of it because something that you never told anyone publically, was made public by someone attempting to make your life hell.
Is this right?
You can say...ah...that's a far extreme...but really...it doesn't take much to slowly inch along that deadly post until it affects you, me, and many others.
That's what's concerning about this...this is why some have called it a slippery slope.
It's what has happened before...when they came for our fellow businessmen we said nothing, because we didn't like them...when they came for our neighbors...we said nothing...because it was not us and we didn't like them...and then they came for us...
There IS a point where free speech and freedom is protected by the government whether or not it is by the government or someone else trying to take something due to that....
We could always shrink your argument down into a smaller ones.
If a guy learns that his girlfriend is cheating on him because his girlfriend told someone who then told him, is it not socially acceptable for him to dump her because of her expectation of privacy? What if he listened to a voicemail on her phone that she left around?
I should say, in full disclosure, it troubles me a bit, in a very broad sense, that this could happen to anyone, simply because of something they said. I don't think anyone would want to see this happen to a colleague or friend. It's a bit worrisome.
That having been said, I'm not going to go down the slippery slope rabbit hole...
In this very specific case, though, I agree with the decision made by Silver and the other owners of the NBA.
The LA Clippers became Mr. Sterling's property once the sale of the franchise to him was approved by the NBA. And, with regard to Mr. Bugleyman's assertion, political correctness, character assassination, spying and vituperance are wrong and harmful whether they are used by the left or the right. Remember that in the 1940's and 50's these tactics were used to discredit,silence, and punish liberals.
Franchise doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
It wouldn't be a state prosecution but a civil complaint where the burden is far less substantial. Also, in "two-party" recording states the onus is on the recorder to demonstrate both parties agree to be recorded.It's generally the case in our legal system that the state has to prove the defendant has committed a crime, not that the defendant has to prove they didn't.That is, if he can show she did not have permission to record.Wouldn't the burden be on her to prove that she had permission?What would be?
Caineach's line followed a description of the criminal penalties for recording without consent. That was the context I was responding to.Even if he sued her in civil court instead of asking for criminal charges, I believe the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. The standard is lower, but the presumption shouldn't change.
If she (or someone else) is trying to have it introduced as evidence in some other legal proceeding then all bets are off. I have no idea how it works.
I did mention both the criminal and civil penalties, but either way the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that she did not have consent. It is a lower burden in a civil trial, but, as thejeff wrote, the case would still have to be made. You can't just sue someone and have your word be taken at face value.
I should say, in full disclosure, it troubles me a bit, in a very broad sense, that this could happen to anyone, simply because of something they said.
There's an obvious solution implicit in that datum. Don't say things that will get you in trouble.
In that sense, it couldn't happen to anyone, only to people too damn stupid or stubborn to keep their mouths shut.
You have the absolute right to be an a!&%+#~ if you like. But if you decide to behave like one, people also have the absolute right to treat you like one. So if you want to be an a$#%#!~, make sure that no one notices.
It wouldn't be a state prosecution but a civil complaint where the burden is far less substantial. Also, in "two-party" recording states the onus is on the recorder to demonstrate both parties agree to be recorded.It's generally the case in our legal system that the state has to prove the defendant has committed a crime, not that the defendant has to prove they didn't.That is, if he can show she did not have permission to record.Wouldn't the burden be on her to prove that she had permission?What would be?
Caineach's line followed a description of the criminal penalties for recording without consent. That was the context I was responding to.Even if he sued her in civil court instead of asking for criminal charges, I believe the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. The standard is lower, but the presumption shouldn't change.
If she (or someone else) is trying to have it introduced as evidence in some other legal proceeding then all bets are off. I have no idea how it works.
It would be sterling suing her in civil court, for damages related to illegally recording and distributing a conversation. The recording itself is 100% proof that the recording exists. Then stupid statements that any reasonable person wouldn't make if they knew they were being recorded is enough for "preponderance" which is all that is needed in civil court. It would then be on her to prove she had authorization to record.
Mr. Thunderspirit: i'm old enough to personally remember the late 1940's and 50's.
Then your ignorance of the rights you are entitled to is truly inexcusable.
The LA Clippers are NOT the NBA's room.
I'm not sure what you mean by "room", here, but the Clippers are, by contract, part of the NBA, and that - again, by contract - provides the NBA with some pretty broad oversight.
The franchise is owned by Mr. Sterling and will probably continue to be owned by him until any court case(s) can be ultimately decided (which will take many years). Also, be reminded that the tape recordings have only come to the public's attention because of illegal spying/tape recording.
He was aware that he was being recorded. We have no reason to believe otherwise. You really want this to be illegal because it gives you some small wiggle room to argue that he wasn't in the wrong. Even though he still would be.
If this were a criminal case, such evidence might be inadmissable.
But it's not, so it doesn't matter! Hooray!
Furthermore, there now appears to be a possible connection ( criminal conspiracy ?) between the spy/information leaker and a potential buyer interested in the purchase of the team. AH, THIS CASE BECOMES EVER MORE INTERESTING AS IT UNFOLDS.
No, it doesn't. You're bordering on conspiracy nut territory. Again, surprising no one.
The LA Clippers are NOT the NBA's room. The franchise is owned by Mr. Sterling and will probably continue to be owned by him until any court case(s) can be ultimately decided (which will take many years). Also, be reminded that the tape recordings have only come to the public's attention because of illegal spying/tape recording. If this were a criminal case, such evidence might be inadmissable. Furthermore, there now appears to be a possible connection ( criminal conspiracy ?) between the spy/information leaker and a potential buyer interested in the purchase of the team. AH, THIS CASE BECOMES EVER MORE INTERESTING AS IT UNFOLDS.
You really should look up the word franchise.
The LA Clippers are NOT the NBA's room. The franchise is owned by Mr. Sterling and will probably continue to be owned by him until any court case(s) can be ultimately decided (which will take many years). Also, be reminded that the tape recordings have only come to the public's attention because of illegal spying/tape recording. If this were a criminal case, such evidence might be inadmissable. Furthermore, there now appears to be a possible connection ( criminal conspiracy ?) between the spy/information leaker and a potential buyer interested in the purchase of the team. AH, THIS CASE BECOMES EVER MORE INTERESTING AS IT UNFOLDS.
The Clippers are not the NBA's room. However, they are IN the NBA's room. The threat of taking away the franchise is not that they will take the Clippers away from Mr. Sterling, but rather that they will kick the Clippers out of the NBA unless Mr. Sterling sells the team to a new owner who will not drive away players and sponsors. This is 100% legal because Mr. Sterling signed a contract upon his purchase of the Clippers agreeing to this possibility.
Please bear in mind that no one is taking the Clippers away from Mr. Sterling. The most likely outcome is that he sells the team for a price of over $1 billion. The only way he loses money is if he decides he would rather the team lose its franchise instead of selling it, in which case he reaps the rewards of making a stupid decision.
Mr. Betts, did I insult you back in the days when you were telling all of us that D&D 4.0 was far superior to Pathfinder?
What does 4E have to do with the price of tea in China?
BTW, imo 4E was far superior to Pathfinder. But beside being *totally* subjective, that's another (probably locked) thread. Did you expect to win people over based on your CHOICE OF RPG? :P
Let's put this in another way. We all (well, I do at least) play Pathfinder.
Let's take the D&D moral panic of the early to mid 80s and apply it today. Let's say that they went a step further and decided that they would kick us out of their communities, fire us from our jobs, and not do business with us (inclusive of no buying food, water, or anything else) because they consider us all devil-worshippers.
Who are "they"?
Good luck kicking my out of my community; I own my house and I was very careful not to sign any covenants about how I have to live my life. So the only way they could enforce this would be via the government, at which point the actual Constitution -- you should read it sometime, because it's very informative -- would kick in.
Basically, if you want to protect your rights, don't sign them away.
And don't complain that you have no rights once you've voluntarily given them away for the thrill of owning a Pathfinder book.
You live in a state, you signed the contract by moving there. Believe it or not, you've signed the community contract by living there and paying taxes.
Try not paying your community and state taxes for a while and see how much your not signing any covenants help you.
Even worse, did you buy mineral and water rights? If not, they can literally make a hole under your house that will destroy your house as it collapses in the hole.
Do you buy food? It will be hard to live when no one will sell you any groceries.
Do you have a job...would you agree it's right for them to fire you for telling your wife or us that you play Pathfinder?
Alright. Let's start small. I'm a straight white male, but I have friends who happen to be gay and black. Let's say I walk into a small local business I've patronized for years and for the first time overhear the owner going off to a friend of his about the evils of the blacks and the gays (using words which Paizo's filtering software would censor). Not public remarks, but something I was not intended to overhear.
What are my moral obligations at this time to avoid going down your slippery slope?
Do I have to keep shopping there and giving him my money and business?
Can I stop shopping there myself, but I shouldn't tell anyone else what I'd heard or recommend they avoid the place?
Can I tell a few select friends, as long as I don't actually go public?
Can I organize a boycott on this local level?Is it just the scale and access to social media that makes this a problem in your mind? Is there ever a case when a boycott is justified?
You can boycott him all you want.
However, for equal action, what you'd have to do is to tap his phone and listen to him, record it without any evidence he ever agreed to let you to tap his phone, and then use that as a reason for you to force him out of his bar and part of his house, not let him on his property, and then to top it off, force him to sell the bar...to a friend who paid you off to tap his phone in the first place.
I did mention both the criminal and civil penalties, but either way the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that she did not have consent. It is a lower burden in a civil trial, but, as thejeff wrote, the case would still have to be made. You can't just sue someone and have your word be taken at face value.It wouldn't be a state prosecution but a civil complaint where the burden is far less substantial. Also, in "two-party" recording states the onus is on the recorder to demonstrate both parties agree to be recorded.It's generally the case in our legal system that the state has to prove the defendant has committed a crime, not that the defendant has to prove they didn't.That is, if he can show she did not have permission to record.Wouldn't the burden be on her to prove that she had permission?What would be?
Caineach's line followed a description of the criminal penalties for recording without consent. That was the context I was responding to.Even if he sued her in civil court instead of asking for criminal charges, I believe the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. The standard is lower, but the presumption shouldn't change.
If she (or someone else) is trying to have it introduced as evidence in some other legal proceeding then all bets are off. I have no idea how it works.
Actually, in these cases where it needs two party consent, it is always on the person claiming that both parties consented to provide that proof, or it didn't happen.
This is standard in business and other aspects of law. Otherwise whenever you had a criminal take a car, you'd have them get off by claiming the other person told them they could "borrow" it. They have to have proof in order to allow them to do certain things.
Two party consent is a lot like a contract, but normally easier to prove. For a phone conversation all that would be needed is to inform he other person that it is being recorded (on EVERY conversation of course) and give them the opportunity to not continue talking...or even better, get their agreement on each call vocally each time.
You don't even have to get the signature...but without some sort of evidence showing consent...there was none.
Happens all the time in criminal, business, and civil court cases. This is why it's important to document EVERYTHING.
Currently the girlfriend hasn't presented any proof it was consensual (well, her doing certain activities were consensual supposedly...but the taping of conversations have not been confirmed as having had both parties consent as of this time).
What I think could happen, because there is no way she could pay damages, and this stuff moves uphill, is that the NBA is hit with a lawsuit for approximately 4x the amount of damages and other things (as last time they tried something like this) UNLESS the owners actually back up the commissioner. If they do not...I don't expect he'll be a happy guy for long, despite the PR win.
IF they do, that will severely damage a lawsuit that might come out (won't stop it, but could do major damage against it) against the ruling.
I should say, in full disclosure, it troubles me a bit, in a very broad sense, that this could happen to anyone, simply because of something they said.There's an obvious solution implicit in that datum. Don't say things that will get you in trouble.
That would be the simplest solution, yes :)
|
As an observation, and dependent on jurisdiction, many wire tapping laws include recorded speech of any type either explicitly in their language or implicitly vis a vis court rulings.
This conversation comes up in recording cops a lot. See here if such a thing interests you.
Mr. Betts, did I insult you back in the days when you were telling all of us that D&D 4.0 was far superior to Pathfinder?
Is that your defense, Martin? That's really where you want to go with this?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The right of freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want within loose limits of harm and safety: and it does not apply only to laws passed by congress.
No, it also applies to laws passed by state legislatures.
That's pretty much it, however. It doesn't apply to actions by private entities, unless they break laws.
For example, I could call you a moronic left winger and you could call me a fanatical right winger. Neither of us has the right to censor or punish the other for doing so.
Actually, if you're using my property to speak, whether it's an internet forum I own, or whether you're standing on my land to say what you're saying, I do have the right to censor you, by deleting your posts, revoking your membership, kicking you off my land, etc.
Similarly, I have the right to not hire you, not hang out with you, not talk to you, etc.
The NBA, by its attempt to take away both Mr. Sterling's right of free speech and his property in the form of ownership of the LA Clippers is depriving him both of his speech and his property
No, they're not. Because he is not protected from the NBA by the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights defines what sort of laws the government can and can't pass.
I just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlash
I don't.
On the one hand, invasion of privacy is something I hate.
On the other hand, the cat is out of the bag on this, and whatever he said is now public knowledge. I certainly have no problem with the public shaming, along with any other action taken by anyone who could be damaged by association, and wholeheartedly support any boycotting, ostracization, and other pressures society can put upon him.
Now, not forgetting the invasion of privacy thing, and I hope anyone responsible for that is punished appropriately, but it certainly doesn't in any way nullify the things he said and the sort of person we now see he is.
|
|
On the one hand, invasion of privacy is something I hate.
On the other hand, the cat is out of the bag on this, and whatever he said is now public knowledge. I certainly have no problem with the public shaming, along with any other action taken by anyone who could be damaged by association, and wholeheartedly support any boycotting, ostracization, and other pressures society can put upon him.
Now, not forgetting the invasion of privacy thing, and I hope anyone responsible for that is punished appropriately, but it certainly doesn't in any way nullify the things he said and the sort of person we now see he is.
Would you share that opinion on criminal charges for people breaking laws if it came to light in less than legal ways?
Would you share that opinion on criminal charges for people breaking laws if it came to light in less than legal ways?
Courts are bound by rules of evidence, and I would expect any criminal procedure to follow those rules.
The NBA is not bound by such rules; it has its own set of rules of due process defined in the various binding contracts signed by all participants. I would expect any disciplinary procedure enacted by the NBA to follow those rules.
However, I neither want nor expect the NBA and the court to follow the same rules.
Would you share that opinion on criminal charges for people breaking laws if it came to light in less than legal ways?On the one hand, invasion of privacy is something I hate.
On the other hand, the cat is out of the bag on this, and whatever he said is now public knowledge. I certainly have no problem with the public shaming, along with any other action taken by anyone who could be damaged by association, and wholeheartedly support any boycotting, ostracization, and other pressures society can put upon him.
Now, not forgetting the invasion of privacy thing, and I hope anyone responsible for that is punished appropriately, but it certainly doesn't in any way nullify the things he said and the sort of person we now see he is.
On pretty much anything, as long as those who were breaking the law to cause those things to come to light were also punished and the information was solid and not just a rumor or accusation. I don't believe in looking the other way just because of the way the information was made available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How come we didn't have a Cliven Bundy thread?
:(
Did I miss it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The LA Clippers are NOT the NBA's room. The franchise is owned by Mr. Sterling and will probably continue to be owned by him until any court case(s) can be ultimately decided (which will take many years). Also, be reminded that the tape recordings have only come to the public's attention because of illegal spying/tape recording. If this were a criminal case, such evidence might be inadmissable. Furthermore, there now appears to be a possible connection ( criminal conspiracy ?) between the spy/information leaker and a potential buyer interested in the purchase of the team. AH, THIS CASE BECOMES EVER MORE INTERESTING AS IT UNFOLDS.You really should look up the word franchise.
QFT.
Buying a franchise means you've purchased the right to share a brand name (in this case, the NBA). Under the business model, every owner of a franchise gets to use the NBA brand name, provided they abide by the covenants set down by the owner of the brand.
This isn't a very difficult concept to understand: you buy into the NBA brand, you agree to abide by the NBA rules. If you don't, you don't get to be a franchisee any more.
Did I miss it?
There wasn't one.
I'd say it was because everybody here on either side is too wise to venture into that quagmire, but.....I'm not that naive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlash
You'd think he'd have had time to dodge the backlash if it was as viscous as you say.
|
Did I miss it?There wasn't one.
I'd say it was because everybody here on either side is too wise to venture into that quagmire, but.....I'm not that naive.
Too wise! That's a good one. :)
After even Glenn Beck came out and said the guy was too embarrassing to support, it'd be hard to find someone to post supporting him. Not impossible, mind, but difficult.
I could try to fake it using the same persona I use when accusing Anklebiter of causing the downfall of civilization, but it might be too difficult.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlash
Why don't you make a thread about that? Discuss it there.
Or are you claiming that because someone else did something wrong, that we should all ignore this thing?
|
|
I just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlashWhy don't you make a thread about that? Discuss it there.
Or are you claiming that because someone else did something wrong, that we should all ignore this thing?
If this is so damaging to the reputation of the NBA when the rest is fine i think they have much bigger problems than one mouthy owner's personal conversations
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this is so damaging to the reputation of the NBA when the rest is fine i think they have much bigger problems than one mouthy owner's personal conversationsI just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlashWhy don't you make a thread about that? Discuss it there.
Or are you claiming that because someone else did something wrong, that we should all ignore this thing?
I don't think anyone has ever said that the rest is fine.
Can I get a poll of the audience, though? Raise your hand if you're at all surprised that Andrew R is trying to deflect criticism away from an old conservative white guy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too wise! That's a good one. :)I'd say it was because everybody here on either side is too wise to venture into that quagmire, but.....I'm not that naive.
Yeah, I don't know about the rest of you, but I only have a Wisdom of 6.
Can I get a poll of the audience, though? Raise your hand if you're at all surprised that Andrew R is trying to deflect criticism away from an old conservative white guy!
[Doesn't raise hand]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlash
There is a reason some of us already boycott professional sports.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How many actually commit such crimes and are convicted of such during their careers and continue to play? Very few, I suspect, because once convicted, they're usually in jail, not playing.I just find it funny that players can be rapists, drug dealers, gang members, commit gun crimes etc without such viscous backlashThere is a reason some of us already boycott professional sports.
As a crucial example, albeit in a different sport: Ray Lewis, formerly of the Baltimore Ravens. Charged in 2000 with the murder of two men. Pretty heinous, huh?
Of course, the charges were dismissed (he was let off with a misdemeanor, and his two co-defendants were acquitted), so unless you're privy to something that neither the judge, the DA, nor the jury knew, it's hard to confirm that he actually committed any felonies. And despite the acquittals, the NFL issued him "the highest fine levied against an NFL player for an infraction not involving substance abuse." [Wikipedia]
He never saw prison time because he was never convicted, but still received a huge fine. Compare that with the handling of Sterling's legal cases -- despite the DOJ fining him two and half million (and ordering him to pay $5 million in legal fees), he received no punishment from the league. And Baylor's discrimination suit -- which will almost certainly be revisited in light of this new evidence -- resulted in no punishment either.
It certainly doesn't look like the players are avoiding backlash to me. But if you live in a reality-free zone as so many conservative commentators do.....
Did I miss it?There wasn't one.
I'd say it was because everybody here on either side is too wise to venture into that quagmire, but.....I'm not that naive.
Too wise! That's a good one. :)
After even Glenn Beck came out and said the guy was too embarrassing to support, it'd be hard to find someone to post supporting him. Not impossible, mind, but difficult.
I could try to fake it using the same persona I use when accusing Anklebiter of causing the downfall of civilization, but it might be too difficult.
if you cant get glenn beck in your corner, youre really out there.