RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The initially analogy is slightly flawed. It would actually be more something like this.
Yep. I'm not privy to the contracts, but the NBA is probably much like any other franchise arrangement. I mean, if you started up a McDonald's franchise and started putting Klan robes on all your Ronald McDonald statues, McDonald's would revoke your franchise post haste.
|
For everyone who has claimed his freedom of speech was violated, I'll leave this here.
Now, as to the other matter. If the recording was made on the sly and in violation of the law, then yeah, you get into an odd situation. Technically, if there had been a crime, it would probably not be admissible in court(I'm neither a lawyer nor a judge, so I leave that for those better in the know to determine). BUT this is not a criminal trial, this is public scrutiny ... so whether the tape would be admissible or not is moot.
Bottom line is yeah, he said it, he deserves whatever backlash the public throws his way. If the tape was made in violation of the law, then he has the right to press charges against the one who made the recording (his girlfriend ... or probably now ex-girlfriend). But he has not had his freedom of speech impinged upon, just his sense and expectation of privacy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.
To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...
Regardless of to him...or to yourselves.
That's the BIG kicker in all of this...these were not public items nor were they given for public...but were obtained through several ways which were not exactly legal...
Upon reflection, the better item for the NBA probably would have been to say, it's a private matter and they are staying out of it...OR...they do not condone the actions of a crime.
I think Kereem Abdul-Jabbar (If you don't know who that is, you probably don't know that much about the NBA I'd imagine...but you can look him up) says it best
“Again, there’s no excuse for his positions. There’s no excuse for what he said. There’s no excuse for anybody to support racism. There’s no place for it in our league, but there’s a very, very, very slippery slope.
“If it’s about racism and we’re ready to kick people out of the league, OK? Then what about homophobia? What about somebody who doesn’t like a particular religion. What about somebody who’s anti-semitic What about a xenophobe?
“In this country, people are allowed to be morons.”
.......And now the poor guy’s girlfriend (undoubtedly ex-girlfriend now) is on tape cajoling him into revealing his racism. Man, what a winding road she led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.” She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee.
They caught big game on a slow news day, so they put his head on a pike, dubbed him Lord of the Flies, and danced around him whooping…
Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.
Kareem Abdul-Jabber's comments and commentary
I believe he also wants Sterling taken to task, but it's the repercussions of how this information came about and how it's been acted upon which has frightening ramifications.
There's that old saying...that goes something like...they first came for my neighbor...and I said nothing because I didn't like my neighbor, then they came for my friend...but I didn't really like my friend...and then they came for me....
|
I believe he was suing her for the money and gifts he gave her during their relationship when the tape was released.I admit it's a tricky legal situation because of whatever contract he had to sign to join. It's an arrangement that would make any libertarian cringe (I own the team, but someone else tells me how I can use it, and can take it away if they don't like what I do with it). So I guess the moral of the story is:
1) Don't sign away all your rights, just for millions of dollars.
and
2) Treat your sugar babies well. Otherwise, they may get tired of screwing you for money, and decide to turn around and, well, screw you for money.
I think it's his wife that is suing her for the money and gifts she recieved.
Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.
To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...
Not at all. Rules of evidence are for courts, and this is a private matter. Even courts will disagree about the admissibility of evidence, and they're bound by formal rules. Private individuals can make whatever decisions they make based on what they know or have learned.
To put it another way, if I learned (through information gained via "invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion") that one of your neighbors was a child molester, I would probably forbid him the house, and certainly not allow him to babysit my daughter.
The idea that the way you, personally, learn something keeps you, personally, from acting upon it, and thereby puts something you, personally, value at serious risk is ludicrous.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact of the matter is, once knowledge of what someone has said is made public, how it was made public is a moot point as to how people will react to that knowledge. We may not agree with the way in which the knowledge was gathered or released, and it very well may piss people off majorly ... take a look at the way many reacted to Edward Snowden ... lots of folks were furious as to how he released the information, and the way he obtained it was not exactly legal, but it brought about a much needed discussion as to what the NSA has been doing.
While this does not measure to the importance, IMO, as revealing a government program that was kept secret as it's nature would really infuriate most US citizens, the underlying concept is still the same.
How it was gathered and released is moot in regards to how the public will react to the information. The method and circumstances around the gathering and releasing of the information will play out in it's own arena (either civil or criminal court, I am fairly certain unless Sterling acknowledges he authorized the taping of the conversation, in which case that too then becomes a moot point).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
oh cool, after being in the middle of L.A. losing its collective mind over this, I was really curious how the paizo community would handle it
These actions are governed on the state level. They were perfectly legal here in New York, where only 1 party of the conversation needs to know that it is being recorded. This action would only be illegal in 12 states (including California where it took place)
First offense is a fine up to 2.5K and/or up to 1 year in jail.
In civil court, she can be liable for 5K or up to 3X damages.
That is, if he can show she did not have permission to record.
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?
It's an arrangement that would make any libertarian cringe
No, it isn't.
(I own the team, but someone else tells me how I can use it, and can take it away if they don't like what I do with it).
It's a freely-signed contract, which libertarianism has no problem with.
1) Don't sign away all your rights, just for millions of dollars.
He didn't sign away any rights. He agreed to pay penalties if certain rules were broken. He could rant and rave all day and would still make hundreds of millions of dollars off of this.
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?
True, but I doubt he'll be able to produce written documentation that he was never asked for permission.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that "Free speech" can refer not just to the legal concept in the Constitution, but also the general ethic that people shouldn't have their careers and livelihoods attacked because they hold an unpopular opinion.
That's not really a general ethic, and no one really holds it (except the very recent conservative-led movement to protect hate speech from all consequences, whether from the government or private citizens).
As despicable as his comments were, I think it's a bit chilling to see someone being fined millions of dollars for something said in the privacy of his own home.
I don't think it is. He signed a contract, he knew what was at stake, and now he's suffering for his irresponsible behavior.
Far more than Sterling, I'm concerned about the people I have seen come out of the woodwork to defend him. The internet is filled with concern trolls using "It's a slippery slope!" and "His rights are being abridged!" and "Thought police! Thought police!" as pathetic veils to mask their underlying motivations for wanting to live in a society where they won't suffer any negative consequences whatsoever for their words. This thread is no exception.
Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.
Not if he asked that he be recorded. And none of this makes his words any less heinous.
To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...
No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you have a desire to conflate the two.
That's the BIG kicker in all of this...these were not public items nor were they given for public...but were obtained through several ways which were not exactly legal...
If by "several ways which were not exactly legal," you mean "he asked his girlfriend to use a tape recorder," then sure.
Upon reflection, the better item for the NBA probably would have been to say, it's a private matter and they are staying out of it...OR...they do not condone the actions of a crime.
They don't have the luxury of that call when the guy's words are made public and begin to cost the association millions of dollars in ad revenue as 14 advertising partners cut their ties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Political correctness is today's McCarthyism utilized by left-wingers. In the 1950's, leftists were called communists to discredit and shame them. Now, this tactic is used by the left to discredit the right. This is a dangerous tactic to use, not only because it can be turned against you; but because it corrodes the entire political system which is based upon the right of freedom of speech which lets the populance know the facts and decide the right course of action. Moreover, it can be argued that any contract Mr. Sterling signed which abridged his freedom of speech was an illegal, unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable one.
A conservative constitution-thumper who doesn't know what the "right of freedom of speech" is or what the constitution says. What a surprise.
Of course, libertarians often argue in favor of allowing people to sign away rights. I've seen libertarian arguments in favor of slavery, as long as the person enters into it willingly.It's an arrangement that would make any libertarian cringeNo, it isn't.(I own the team, but someone else tells me how I can use it, and can take it away if they don't like what I do with it).It's a freely-signed contract, which libertarianism has no problem with.
1) Don't sign away all your rights, just for millions of dollars.He didn't sign away any rights. He agreed to pay penalties if certain rules were broken. He could rant and rave all day and would still make hundreds of millions of dollars off of this.
Precisely. The sort of person who calls this a "libertarian nightmare" isn't much of a libertarian.
Not that that's a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.Not if he asked that he be recorded. And none of this makes his words any less heinous.
To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you have a desire to conflate the two.
That's the BIG kicker in all of this...these were not public items nor were they given for public...but were obtained through several ways which were not exactly legal...If by "several ways which were not exactly legal," you mean "he asked his girlfriend to use a tape recorder," then sure.
Upon reflection, the better item for the NBA probably would have been to say, it's a private matter and they are staying out of it...OR...they do not condone the actions of a crime.They don't have the luxury of that call when the guy's words are made public and begin to cost the association millions of dollars in ad revenue as 14 advertising partners cut their ties.
Slight correction: they do have the luxury to make that call, but are unwilling to do so because the guy's words have been made public and began to cost the association millions of dollars in ad revenue as 14 advertising partners cut their ties.
It's totally understandable that the NBA doesn't want to keep a louse like Sterling around as a result. But they certainly could, if they so chose (and were willing to accept the associated public relations nightmare.
Beyond that, I'm in total agreement that this isn't a free speech issue since no law passed by Congress is involved, explicitly or implicitly.
Now just remember, his remarks were gathered by invasion of privacy, blackmail, and extortion.Not if he asked that he be recorded. And none of this makes his words any less heinous.
To support the actions done to him ALSO means you support, invasion of privacy, blackmail and extortion...No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you have a desire to conflate the two.
That's the BIG kicker in all of this...these were not public items nor were they given for public...but were obtained through several ways which were not exactly legal...If by "several ways which were not exactly legal," you mean "he asked his girlfriend to use a tape recorder," then sure.
Upon reflection, the better item for the NBA probably would have been to say, it's a private matter and they are staying out of it...OR...they do not condone the actions of a crime.They don't have the luxury of that call when the guy's words are made public and begin to cost the association millions of dollars in ad revenue as 14 advertising partners cut their ties.Slight correction: they do have the luxury to make that call, but are unwilling to do so because the guy's words have been made public and began to cost the association millions of dollars in ad revenue as 14 advertising partners cut their ties.
It's totally understandable that the NBA doesn't want to keep a louse like Sterling around. as a result. But they certainly could, if they so chose (and were willing to accept the associated public relations nightmare.
Beyond that, I'm in total agreement that this isn't a free speech issue since no law passed by Congress is involved, explicitly or implicitly.
Fair point.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, political correctness triumphs. Even though Mr. Sterling sounds like a louse, he should have the right to express his ideas as long as they do not inflict measureable and serious harm to others or put people in imminent danger ( you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater ). I would hope that he vigorously defends his right of free speech by again suing the NBA.
Your right to free speech protects you from the government trying to shut you up. It doesn't protect you from disagreement, nor does it protect you from social or financial consequences for what you said. It doesn't guarantee you an audience; it doesn't mean that people have to listen to you; it doesn't prevent them from shunning or firing you. In fact, people not being willing to associate with you or employ you because of things you say is actually the marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is supposed to protect working exactly as intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But conservatives have apparently discovered that it's useful to harangue liberals about free speech in an attempt to deflect public anger when someone hits the public spotlight for being racist, sexist or homophobic.
Instead of spending time and energy taking racists, sexists, or homophobes to task, it forces us to spend time and energy explaining how free speech works to people who use the constitution like it's the world's most-autographed billy club.
so guys talk to me about the upcoming changes to the TV contract that the NBA has to factor into this and how it will affect the possibility of a potential lawsuit due to the change it will make in the monetary value of the team
or the role of advertisers in staples center and how that will factor into into a potential lawsuit versus simply being bought out
not to mention the third person in the room during the recording which will factor into the legality and potential criminal charges here in california
also elgin baylor's case has some interesting tie-ins now, in hindsight and will certainly be reexamined in the public eye
oh and do not forget the player's association potentially boycotting the playoffs if a publicly satisfactory ruling of punishment was not made, and how that has factored into a 72 hour turnaround
but you guys already knew all this and this is why I really pay attention to what a lot of you have to say on issues
so guys talk to me about the upcoming changes to the TV contract that the NBA has to factor into this and how it will affect the possibility of a potential lawsuit due to the change it will make in the monetary value of the team
This is not germane to the larger discussion of whether we should be held publicly accountable for the things we do when we think no one is listening or watching.
or the role of advertisers in staples center and how that will factor into into a potential lawsuit versus simply being bought out
Neither is this.
not to mention the third person in the room during the recording which will factor into the legality and potential criminal charges here in california
Neither is this.
also elgin baylor's case has some interesting tie-ins now, in hindsight and will certainly be reexamined in the public eye
Or this.
oh and do not forget the player's association potentially boycotting the playoffs if a publicly satisfactory ruling of punishment was not made, and how that has factored into a 72 hour turnaround
And certainly not this.
so guys talk to me about the upcoming changes to the TV contract that the NBA has to factor into this and how it will affect the possibility of a potential lawsuit due to the change it will make in the monetary value of the teamThis is not germane to the larger discussion of whether we should be held publicly accountable for the things we do when we think no one is listening or watching.
Actually, it's quite germane. The NBA and through it, Mr. Silver, has a duty to protect the value of the NBA itself, including the value of the other teams in the league. For Mr. Silver not to take appropriate action would open him up to liability for a breach of fiduciary duty. The fact that the recordings may have been made illegally, or even an acknowledged fact that the recordings were made illegally would not be a defense against such an action.
Actually, it's quite germane. The NBA and through it, Mr. Silver, has a duty to protect the value of the NBA itself, including the value of the other teams in the league. For Mr. Silver not to take appropriate action would open him up to liability for a breach of fiduciary duty. The fact that the recordings may have been made illegally, or even an acknowledged fact that the recordings were made illegally would not be a defense against such an action.so guys talk to me about the upcoming changes to the TV contract that the NBA has to factor into this and how it will affect the possibility of a potential lawsuit due to the change it will make in the monetary value of the teamThis is not germane to the larger discussion of whether we should be held publicly accountable for the things we do when we think no one is listening or watching.
But, again, that's not the same topic as the discussion of whether it's okay for us to hold someone publicly accountable for what they privately say.
Lamontius was acting, snarkily, as though it's silly or irresponsible for someone to respond to this thread's prompt if they aren't familiar with every last detail of the dynamics of the association and Sterling's personal life. That's nonsense.
| 8 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.
I'm not sure I could put this much wrong together in one place if I worked a full 8-hour shift in a Wrongness mine. I'm not sure that the Duke of Wrong has this much wrong stored in his county home of Stately Wrong Manor in the county of Wrongshire. There are entire planets elsewhere in the galaxy that have suddenly been deprived of their strategic stockpiles of Wrongness.
Oh, and.... no, it doesn't.
But, again, that's not the same topic as the discussion of whether it's okay for us to hold someone publicly accountable for what they privately say.
If you do something privately that damages me, then it's okay for me to hold you publically accountable. Establishing damage is a key aspect of that.
Fortunately, damage was established when the first advertiser pulled out, after which it's simply accountancy.
|
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:
Nope. He is free to speak all he wants. The NBA hasn't prevented any of it.
But just like your example of you and me insulting each other, the NBA does not need to continue associating with him after he metaphorically insulted them.
And since he is standing on the NBA's property when he is insulting them, he is the one that gets to leave. (Subject to the exact wording of the relevant contracts.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Freedom of speech doesn't protect you when your speech or other behavior violates a legal contract you signed in good faith with other private citizens.
So...someone asserting that this whole matter is just a witch-hunt by prosecuted by freedom-hating leftists? What a big surprise!
I think we should be asking whether Mr. Sterling's right to privacy has been violated, but his freedom of speech? Not seeing it.
Those of you saying that the NBA went too far in metting out punishment to Mr. Sterling seem to be overlooking some of the pertinent facts.
Such as:
1. Mr. Sterling is a buisness partner with the 29 other NBA owners. All 30 NBA owners' fortunes are tied together and dependant on the reputation and public opinion of the NBA.
2. Mr. Sterling expressed (in a private conversation) opinions that he considers 75% of the NBA's workforce to be second-class citizens, which were later made pulic (the means are another issue and are not material to the following points).
3. There was a very real threat made by the workers' union (the NBA Players' Association) that they would not work for an organization that condoned these opinions and that the NBA should react swiftly and decisively.
4. These workers (NBA players) represent the top 1% (or less) of all basketball talent in the world and can not be easily replaced. Further, it would be devistating to the NBA if a large number of them decided to play for another organization.
5. Major sponsors began putting distance between themselves and Mr. Sterling's team by pulling their sponsorships immediately and publicly. (Seriously, look at pictures and footage from the Clippers game last night. They covered up more ads and logos than were visible in the arena.)
Based on these facts, the NBA likely saw that they had two choices. They could either (1) throw the book at Sterling and try to run him out of the league, or (2) run the risk of watching the NBA go bankrupt.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...someone asserting that this whole matter is just a witch-hunt by prosecuted by freedom-hating leftists? What a big surprise!
It's right up there with the insinuation that anybody defending Sterling is conservative because everybody knows conservatives are racist.
So...someone asserting that this whole matter is just a witch-hunt by prosecuted by freedom-hating leftists? What a big surprise!It's right up there with the insinuation that anybody defending Sterling is conservative because everybody knows conservatives are racist.
Not that it really matters, but where in this thread did anyone say (or imply) that?