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.
McCarthyism was carried out by the government, whereas Mr. Sterling is being censured by a private party (and apparently in accordance with a contract that Mr. Sterling himself signed).
I'm not seeing the correlation.
Remember that in the 1940's and 50's these tactics were used to discredit,silence, and punish liberals.
Yep.
By members of the government.Significant difference.
EDIT: ninja'd by bugleyman.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, what I think about Sterling I already wrote upthread. Unlike him, I own up to what I say whether publicly or privately.
This whole situation has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, but there are people on both sides who so very desperately want to use it to discredit the other side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DSXMachina, I was wondering how it compares to people's views of the Duke porn star.
I think porn stars, just like other people, should be ashamed to admit that they went to Duke. ;)
|
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.
Um ... no.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment does not guarantee you the right to be able to say whatever you want without repercussion, publicly OR privately. It DOES guarantee that the government cannot stop you from exercising your right to free speech. And the government had no part in any of this, thus the first amendment does not apply.
I would strongly recommend you go back and actually read the Constitution of the USA before you try to use it as a means of defense.
EDIT: Shakes fist at ShadowCatX for ninjaing him with the actual copy from the First Amendment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is no different than a home owners association throwing someone out for violating their contract. They do that all the time.
Mr. Thunderspirit: i'm old enough to personally remember the late 1940's and 50's. The spirit of McCarthyism: that of intolerance, "political correctness", spying, vituperance and punishing went far beyond the government alone. Because of their "incorrect" beliefs or expressions of belief, many people were denied advancement, villified, blacklisted, or suffered the loss of jobs and careers. I believe that people have a right to express almost any belief as long as they do not advocate or practice physical harm to others.
And none of that blacklisting was illegal.
The LA Clippers became Mr. Sterling's property once the sale of the franchise to him was approved by the NBA.
And the Duke of Wrong may need to open another wing in Stately Wrong Manor.
Is that the kind of society we want? One of "political correctness", blacklisting, vituperation, and intimidation? Sadly, I fear that that is the direction in which our society is heading.Mr. Thunderspirit: i'm old enough to personally remember the late 1940's and 50's. The spirit of McCarthyism: that of intolerance, "political correctness", spying, vituperance and punishing went far beyond the government alone. Because of their "incorrect" beliefs or expressions of belief, many people were denied advancement, villified, blacklisted, or suffered the loss of jobs and careers. I believe that people have a right to express almost any belief as long as they do not advocate or practice physical harm to others.And none of that blacklisting was illegal.
We have always been that kind of society. The only difference is that now we have the technology to permanently record those thoughts and distribute them world wide in seconds.
We have always been that kind of society. The only difference is that now we have the technology to permanently record those thoughts and distribute them world wide in seconds.
I think that privacy is, more and more, outmoded. Privacy is a thing of the past, much like horse drawn carriages and Blockbuster Video. They can almost read your mind with an MRI machine.....
Like inuits sleeping ten to an igloo, I think that to a certain extent we all better just learn to ignore mom and pop when they're rolling around in the sleeping bag, or we're all kinda screwed here.
So, people should be allowed to say what they want without consequence, but we should police how people choose to respond to it?
So if I choose not to shop at a place that's owned by an unapologetic racist, is that wrong?
Are those sponsors wrong for pulling adverts for Sterling's words? Should they themselves be fined for not having any tolerance?
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.
"Free speech" doesn't mean "I can say whatever I want and nothing bad can come from it."
What "Free Speech" does mean is "I can say whatever I want and the government can't stop me."
There is a rather large difference.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
But by limiting the kind of response to the speech of others (as you seem to be advocating), you are in essence limiting the freedom of speech of others.
Bottom line is, if you say something that I find repugnant, my decision to not do business with you, to call for a boycott of your business, to march in demonstrations against your vocalizing of your opinion IS my exercising MY freedom of speech.
You can say whatever you will, but I do not have to stand for it and can actively voice my opposition to it.
Or are you saying that freedom of speech only applies to some and their viewpoints but not to others?
This whole situation has nothing to do with liberal/conservative, but there are people on both sides who so very desperately want to use it to discredit the other side.
No argument there. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is my belief that freedom demands the toleration (not to be interpreted as agreement with) of differing, even repugnant speech. The diminishment of freedom leads only to a more and more closed and intolerant society based upon what is felt to be politically or religiously correct. Freedom is the ingredient that hopefully opens the doors to discussion, experimentation, and real change.
So we have to be tolerant of intolerance? Do you not see the inherent contradiction in that?
They can almost read your mind with an MRI machine.....
Meh...give it ten years. :P
It is my belief that freedom demands the toleration (not to be interpreted as agreement with) of differing, even repugnant speech.Yes and no. We have to tolerate his speech in that we can't force him to quit saying it, but we do not have to tolerate it by staying in the same room.
... or by providing him with a soapbox. If it's my room, I'm not the one who is going to have to leave.
In this case, it's the NBA's room -- and they told Sterling to leave. He can continue to say what he likes, but he can't do it as an affiliate of the NBA.
Of course, consequences are the result of people's actions. No one is forced to play in or attend Lakers games. Just as in the boycotts of segregated buses, I am sure that the will of the people would have made itself known to Mr. Sterling. I would even guess that the issue would have been decided in a shorter time than that of a protracted court battle which will probably now ensue.
But the NBA should be forced to keep him?
Of course, consequences are the result of people's actions. No one is forced to play in or attend Lakers games. Just as in the boycotts of segregated buses, I am sure that the will of the people would have made itself known to Mr. Sterling.
They did. It took less than a week.
And it's precisely the revenue loss to the the rest of the NBA ("no one is forced to play in or attend [...] games"; I should add to that "or advertise at games") that the Commissioner took steps to prevent. As is not only his right, but his duty.
No one has told Sterling he can't own a professional basketball team.
They can almost read your mind with an MRI machine.....Meh...give it ten years. :P
Ethical Concerns of fMRI Lie Detection
Although fMRI is a very useful tool, several ethical concerns have been raised about its use for lie detection and in research. One of the main concerns is confidentiality and privacy, particularly for research participants. Confidentiality of medical information must be maintained; however, lie detection is not considered medical information, and currently there are no regulations in this area. As a result, new findings are posted or published online to help facilitate more research in the field. Because fMRI uses high-resolution images, individual faces could be reconstructed, leading to possible recognition of the subject.28,29Another ethical concern raised by scientists and psychologists is violating one's right to mental privacy.28 If fMRI was determined to be an acceptable form of evidence in court, a court order could potentially be issued forcing an individual to undergo this scan without signing an informed consent. This also raises the question, are victims equally compelled to have an fMRI scan performed on them?30 These questions and concerns need to be considered and addressed, preferably by a committee composed of scientists, lawyers, and ethicists, to ensure the proper and regulated use of fMRI lie detection in the court room.10
this is from a ceu activity I did for my job....
kinda dabbling on the verge of "Brave New World" type stuff.
No one has told Sterling he can't own a professional basketball team.
Not yet. The question of whether the other team owners will force him to sell his team is actually still being discussed by them.
No one has told Sterling he can't own a professional basketball team.Not yet. The question of whether the other team owners will force him to sell his team is actually still being discussed by them.
No the question is where will he play his professional team next season if not in the NBA, if he chooses to keep it?
No one has told Sterling he can't own a professional basketball team.Not yet. The question of whether the other team owners will force him to sell his team is actually still being discussed by them.
No the question is where will he play his professional team next season if not in the NBA, if he chooses to keep it?
North Korea maybe.
Something else to toss a wrench into the picture, and is slowly coming out.
Mr. Sterlings Girlfriend is not white. She actually is a minority.
Now, she also developed somewhat of a friendship with Johnson (or Magic Johnson as he used to be known). When this was all released Magic Johnson was VERY unhappy with the remarks, to say the least. In fact, it could be pointed he was one of the catalysts that brought on some of these PRIVATE comments from Mr. Sterling.
So why is this important? It appears that Magic Johnson and some peers had already been trying to obtain the clippers. They were unable to get a sale or even anything else.
With this, it sets up a prime reason to force a sale to them if they can get the votes.
This is also important because Mr. Sterling's comments and discrimination were public knowledge as of 2009 (aka...the items were not hidden per se, the conversation released was not known, but the discrimination and his treatment of players were).
In fact, this was probably one of the reasons that they were trying to get the sale from him before this already.
Now, nothing has changed except the release of the comments. It was then Magic Johnson (who is trying to buy the team) who led the charge against Mr. Sterling in the media with his outrage and being upset with such commentary and led to a unification of players against Mr. Sterling.
It could be coincidence, especially if Magic Johnson ends up buying the Clippers with some peers...but with the timing of the discussions and not making headway...
Is it possible this is a economic motivation in regards to someone else trying to buy the clippers more than what was said by Mr. Sterling, and the statements are actually being used as a cover for something else?
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?
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.
I was thinking of the leaving as in the players, the advertisers, the general public, etc. but you make a good point, freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to have someone supply you with a soap box.
Yes and no. We have to tolerate his speech in that we can't force him to quit saying it, but we do not have to tolerate it by staying in the same room.
... or by providing him with a soapbox. If it's my room, I'm not the one who is going to have to leave.
In this case, it's the NBA's room -- and they told Sterling to leave. He can continue to say what he likes, but he can't do it as an affiliate of the NBA.
I think that's a key point, though. Even Martin seems to accept that people are free to vote-with-their-feet and decide not to attend, not to play, not to advertise, not to whatever. But that will take money directly out of the pockets of everyone else involved with the NBA, including the other 29 owners.
Basically, Martin is trying to tell Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavericks) that Donald Sterling can destroy the NBA's brand, and that Cuban is morally required to stand still and let Sterling pick his pocket. The simple fact is that once it becomes obvious that Sterling is a liability, it's entirely appropriate for Cuban and the rest of the NBA to do anything within their power to cut their losses and prevent people from deserting the NBA as a whole.
Which is basically what happened.
I don't know if Mark Cuban's necessarily the best example to name here, other than that I get what you're saying.
Something else to toss a wrench into the picture, and is slowly coming out.
Mr. Sterlings Girlfriend is not white. She actually is a minority.
Now, she also developed somewhat of a friendship with Johnson (or Magic Johnson as he used to be known). When this was all released Magic Johnson was VERY unhappy with the remarks, to say the least. In fact, it could be pointed he was one of the catalysts that brought on some of these PRIVATE comments from Mr. Sterling.
So why is this important? It appears that Magic Johnson and some peers had already been trying to obtain the clippers. They were unable to get a sale or even anything else.
With this, it sets up a prime reason to force a sale to them if they can get the votes.
This is also important because Mr. Sterling's comments and discrimination were public knowledge as of 2009 (aka...the items were not hidden per se, the conversation released was not known, but the discrimination and his treatment of players were).
In fact, this was probably one of the reasons that they were trying to get the sale from him before this already.
Now, nothing has changed except the release of the comments. It was then Magic Johnson (who is trying to buy the team) who led the charge against Mr. Sterling in the media with his outrage and being upset with such commentary and led to a unification of players against Mr. Sterling.
It could be coincidence, especially if Magic Johnson ends up buying the Clippers with some peers...but with the timing of the discussions and not making headway...
Is it possible this is a economic motivation in regards to someone else trying to buy the clippers more than what was said by Mr. Sterling, and the statements are actually being used as a cover for something else?
If this is true, good for Magic Johnson for using the guys racism to his advantage.
Edit:
The fact of the matter is, Magic would not have been able to get media attention like he has if people did not agree that this behavior was unacceptable. He did not fabricate a story for his own benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if the same people would be defending him if he had said such disparaging remarks against Christians?
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.
The commissioner himself does not really have the power to do what he did under anything revealed under the NBA constitution unless agreed upon by others.
Legally, at this point, it should prove interesting to see what happens in regards to the owner and the banning from facilities and games. That is enforceable currently to a degree, but legally may be challenged (many expect it might be).
However, the bigger ground is if the sell off of the team will be allowed by the owners and if they will give a Commissioner this much power.
If it's a private vote, I expect they may not back up the commissioner on this for one reason...
Look up some of those owners...there are many of them JUST AS GUILTY as Mr. Sterling in regards to comments they have made...and those comments aren't even private...imagine what would turn up if private comments can be used as fuel in order to take a team from someone?
This could turn dirty really quick. Mr. Sterling could simply be the first one to fall if they pursue this...and the owners know this (that entire, they came for my neighbor but not me type thing...then they came for me...) and that's probably why there's going to be a LOT of gritting of teeth, backroom deals, and other things.
This could turn and bite Mr. Silver in the rear end very quickly and not to his benefit. It's a PR landslide of goodwill right now...but PR is not all there is to money.
Something else to toss a wrench into the picture, and is slowly coming out.
Mr. Sterlings Girlfriend is not white. She actually is a minority.
Now, she also developed somewhat of a friendship with Johnson (or Magic Johnson as he used to be known). When this was all released Magic Johnson was VERY unhappy with the remarks, to say the least. In fact, it could be pointed he was one of the catalysts that brought on some of these PRIVATE comments from Mr. Sterling.
So why is this important? It appears that Magic Johnson and some peers had already been trying to obtain the clippers. They were unable to get a sale or even anything else.
With this, it sets up a prime reason to force a sale to them if they can get the votes.
This is also important because Mr. Sterling's comments and discrimination were public knowledge as of 2009 (aka...the items were not hidden per se, the conversation released was not known, but the discrimination and his treatment of players were).
In fact, this was probably one of the reasons that they were trying to get the sale from him before this already.
Now, nothing has changed except the release of the comments. It was then Magic Johnson (who is trying to buy the team) who led the charge against Mr. Sterling in the media with his outrage and being upset with such commentary and led to a unification of players against Mr. Sterling.
It could be coincidence, especially if Magic Johnson ends up buying the Clippers with some peers...but with the timing of the discussions and not making headway...
Is it possible this is a economic motivation in regards to someone else trying to buy the clippers more than what was said by Mr. Sterling, and the statements are actually being used as a cover for something else?
Why would any of that matter? The NBA reacted how it did to save it's brand. Do you think they would have responded differently had Magic Johnson not wanted to buy the clippers?
I don't know if Mark Cuban's necessarily the best example to name here, other than that I get what you're saying.
Actually, there's a reason I named him. Some quotes from the article you cited:
Cuban said he trusted Commissioner Adam Silver to “operate under the best interest of the NBA.”[...]
Asked if the league would be better off without Sterling as an owner, Cuban said, “At this point, yes.”
“But that has nothing to do with the rules that we have to live by,” Cuban said. “There’s a lot of things I don’t agree with that by letter and rule of law has to happen anyway. When you live in a country of laws, you want to support the laws.”
That's why I said "anything within their power."
| 2 people 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....
That's a really long post just to say "slippery slope."
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.
Mr. Sterlings Girlfriend is not white. She actually is a minority.
What does this have to do with anything else you wrote?
Let's put this in another way. We all (well, I do at least) play Pathfinder.That's a really long post just to say "slippery slope."
He was hoping that if he used enough words, you wouldn't realize how fallacious he was being.
What does this have to do with anything else you wrote?
Mr. Sterlings Girlfriend is not white. She actually is a minority.
Obviously, this is all a plot by minorities to deprive Real People of their rights and property through cunningly enforcing the terms of the contracts they signed.