I have no idea what he will decide; but he certainly has the resources to keep a lot of lawyers on both sides in business for a long time.
Possibly, but it will simply end up costing him more money in the long run.
Let's start by observing that he has no chance of actually prevailing in any of the lawsuits you suggest. Franchise law doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. But let's say that his lawyers persuade him to sue anyway because they need the hours.....
Scheduling of games is solely at the NBA's discretion. If the NBA so decides, the LA Clippers will not be scheduled to play any games whatsoever, which means no income from tickets. The use of the NBA trademarks is also controlled by the NBA (although the name LA Clippers is owned by the Clippers franchise; I checked), so he can't make any money selling NBA-branded merchandise, either. Given the Clippers' payroll, this means that he'll be losing at least $75 million each year paying salaries to inactive players -- plus any costs to fringe benefits, office staff, building maintenance, and so forth, which will probably push yearly costs up to closer to $100-150 million per year.
That dwarfs the $2.5 million fine he received.
He may indeed have the resources to burn $100 million/year out of his billions. But he'd be foolish to do so.
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.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.
Now saying racist things is not a crime and thus there is no conviction to deal with, nor any prison time keeping him from being involved. Only the NBA's actions and the public outcry are going to have any effect.
I'm not sure what would trigger a huge outcry when a player is convicted of drug dealing and sent to jail. What would the protesters want the team to do?
Of course, on an even more depressing note, there have been cases where the response to rape charges in particular has been for fans to rally around the accused. Even the Sandusky child molestation case had a good share of that.
agreed. Once you're in jail, your career is usually over. Usually.
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!
I'm not trying to deflect; and I know it's not the NBA, but.....Michael Vick didn't exactly get a lifetime ban from the NFL for torturing dogs.
I think that the vast assortment of misbehavior by others in the league and the curious lack of lifetime bans handed out is going to be pretty important when Sterling brings litigation.
I think that the vast assortment of misbehavior by others in the league and the curious lack of lifetime bans handed out is going to be pretty important when Sterling brings litigation.
Not really. This is an open and shut case of what's written in the league documents and of due process as defined in those documents.
The legal case will proceed as follows:
A) What procedures do the documents say the NBA must follow in cases of internal discipline?
B) Were those procedures followed in this case?
Arguments that the procedures were not followed in other cases are not relevant. If Sterling's lawyers try hard enough to bring them up, the lawyers themselves are likely to face contempt charges.
I have no idea what he will decide; but he certainly has the resources to keep a lot of lawyers on both sides in business for a long time.Possibly, but it will simply end up costing him more money in the long run.
Let's start by observing that he has no chance of actually prevailing in any of the lawsuits you suggest. Franchise law doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. But let's say that his lawyers persuade him to sue anyway because they need the hours.....
Scheduling of games is solely at the NBA's discretion. If the NBA so decides, the LA Clippers will not be scheduled to play any games whatsoever, which means no income from tickets. The use of the NBA trademarks is also controlled by the NBA (although the name LA Clippers is owned by the Clippers franchise; I checked), so he can't make any money selling NBA-branded merchandise, either. Given the Clippers' payroll, this means that he'll be losing at least $75 million each year paying salaries to inactive players -- plus any costs to fringe benefits, office staff, building maintenance, and so forth, which will probably push yearly costs up to closer to $100-150 million per year.
That dwarfs the $2.5 million fine he received.
He may indeed have the resources to burn $100 million/year out of his billions. But he'd be foolish to do so.
Not to mention that the longer he holds the property the more it is going to lose value. Sponsors don't want to be affiliated with a damaged brand. Players will not want to join his team, even if he starts getting games again. Many fans will be permanently lost because of him, and,the longer the team is idle, some will find new teams to root for even if they have no objection to him still owning it.
The longer he owns this property the bigger a liability he is to it and the less money he will be able to sell it for. He would be best starting the sale now before the vote that forces him to so he has more time to try to drive the bidding war up.
Not to mention that the longer he holds the property the more it is going to lose value. Sponsors don't want to be affiliated with a damaged brand. Players will not want to join his team, even if he starts getting games again. Many fans will be permanently lost because of him, and,the longer the team is idle, some will find new teams to root for even if they have no objection to him still owning it.
He may indeed have the resources to burn $100 million/year out of his billions. But he'd be foolish to do so.
True dat. I had forgotten to factor in the loss of sponsorship income as well, but, of course, no one's going to want to pay money for commercial time on games that will never be shown or advertisements to hang in an empty basketball court. People also aren't going to buy jerseys of players who aren't playing. So we could be looking at losses closer to a quarter of a billion per year than a "mere" hundred million.
Of course, this is exactly what the NBA doesn't want to happen, either, and so the justification for taking any measure within the governing documents is pretty secure.
Which, in turn, gets back to the observation that he has no chance of winning any lawsuit. The NBA is simply protecting its brand.
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.
Dude got a slap on the wrist ($2.5 million for this guy isn't a devastating amount) and some harsh talking to as well as a ban for "life" (which is probably about the time it takes for this to get off the front page + 1 year). The owners aren't going to force this guy to sell, they just want people to vent, then think the owners/league did "something" and then move on. Which is exactly what is going to happen. By this time next month people aren't going to give a crap about the Clippers, just like they didn't care about them the entire time before this hit the front pages.
Dude got a slap on the wrist ($2.5 million for this guy isn't a devastating amount) and some harsh talking to as well as a ban for "life" (which is probably about the time it takes for this to get off the front page + 1 year).
You think that it wouldn't get back on the front page if they "unbanned" him?
$2.5 million is indeed a slap on the wrist, but it's also the most they could fine him.
Basically, while you present an interesting theory, I'd be interested to know how you think they would have acted any differently if they were really serious about stomping Sterling into the ground.....
I have no idea what he will decide; but he certainly has the resources to keep a lot of lawyers on both sides in business for a long time.Possibly, but it will simply end up costing him more money in the long run.
Let's start by observing that he has no chance of actually prevailing in any of the lawsuits you suggest. Franchise law doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. But let's say that his lawyers persuade him to sue anyway because they need the hours.....
Scheduling of games is solely at the NBA's discretion. If the NBA so decides, the LA Clippers will not be scheduled to play any games whatsoever, which means no income from tickets. The use of the NBA trademarks is also controlled by the NBA (although the name LA Clippers is owned by the Clippers franchise; I checked), so he can't make any money selling NBA-branded merchandise, either. Given the Clippers' payroll, this means that he'll be losing at least $75 million each year paying salaries to inactive players -- plus any costs to fringe benefits, office staff, building maintenance, and so forth, which will probably push yearly costs up to closer to $100-150 million per year.
That dwarfs the $2.5 million fine he received.
He may indeed have the resources to burn $100 million/year out of his billions. But he'd be foolish to do so.
One man's foolish us another man's entertainment. I would presume that a majority of Americans would say spending $100's a year on TTRPG stuff is foolish too.
One man's foolish us another man's entertainment. I would presume that a majority of Americans would say spending $100's a year on TTRPG stuff is foolish too.
He may indeed have the resources to burn $100 million/year out of his billions. But he'd be foolish to do so.
True, but there's the question of scale. Sterling's net worth is estimated at about $1.9 billion or $1900 million. So we're talking about burning through 5% of his net wealth per year. And while his income is proportionately gargantuan, it's proportionately gargantuan; his net income is probably between $100 and $200 million per year. This little game could easily cut his net income to zero for 2014-2015.
If your total net worth were only $1900 (by comparison, the average American's net worth is about $41,000) and your total income were between $100 and $200 dollars per year.... yeah, I think we could agree that spending $100 a year on TTRPG stuff is pretty foolish.
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!
I'm not trying to deflect; and I know it's not the NBA, but.....Michael Vick didn't exactly get a lifetime ban from the NFL for torturing dogs.
I think that the vast assortment of misbehavior by others in the league and the curious lack of lifetime bans handed out is going to be pretty important when Sterling brings litigation.
nba and nfl are two different worlds when it comes to alot more than just the shape of the ball. Most were surprised he was picked up again, and only the most desperate attention seeing teams were interested in such a hot potato player. Also, Vick is not an owner, and may find it hard (or unusually expensive) to become one on any franchise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not trying to deflect; and I know it's not the NBA, but.....Michael Vick didn't exactly get a lifetime ban from the NFL for torturing dogs.
No he didnt get a lifetime ban.
He just got a harsher suspension than anyone would have gotten for a first time violation of the leagues personal conduct policy.
He was suspended without pay.
He was made to return almost 20 million of the 37 million bonus that he received from the Atlanta Falcons.
He served almost 2 years of actual prison time.
And all of this doesnt even include the fines that he's had to pay.
I'd say that he's taken a MUCH bigger hit than Sterling ever will.
There are RAPISTS and people who commit assault against other ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS who dont get hit that hard.
So, no lifetime ban for Vick.
A lifetime ban for Sterling wouldnt stop him from making a living in his chosen profession. A lifetime ban for Vick? Yeah.
You think that it wouldn't get back on the front page if they "unbanned" him?
If it happened next month? Certainly. If it happened in two years, probably not. It might make the sports page, but that is about all. I mean does anyone seriously think this would have blown up if right as it became known, that right then the Malaysian plane had disappeared? This would have been dropped off the front page in an instant. This just happens to be the "biggest" story of the moment. Two years from now, this will be passe, hell the next presidential election campaigning will be full swing by that point.
$2.5 million is indeed a slap on the wrist, but it's also the most they could fine him.
True. Like I said, it shows the public that they did "something". Now it can slowly fade. To see how quickly it defused the situation look at how athletes quickly decided not to walk out (how likely I think that actually was during a playoff game is another issue).
Basically, while you present an interesting theory, I'd be interested to know how you think they would have acted any differently if they were really serious about stomping Sterling into the ground.....
Probably less flash and hellfire and more quiet lawyer work, because that is what they will need to get actually get rid of him. But I don't think it is ever really is a likely proposition. The owners aren't going to let something like this happen, they all know they are corrupt, disgusting slime.
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!
I'm not trying to deflect; and I know it's not the NBA, but.....Michael Vick didn't exactly get a lifetime ban from the NFL for torturing dogs.
No, he didn't, but he was incarcerated for nearly two years, lost his job (the Falcons tried to trade him but failed), lost his endorsement deals, and ended up filing for bankruptcy before he found a team willing to sign him.
In other words, the guy suffered a tremendous amount of backlash, legal and otherwise. No, the NHL wasn't directly responsible for it, but in this case there were plenty of other institutions willing to mete out punishment.
One man's foolish us another man's entertainment. I would presume that a majority of Americans would say spending $100's a year on TTRPG stuff is foolish too.
He may indeed have the resources to burn $100 million/year out of his billions. But he'd be foolish to do so.
True, but there's the question of scale. Sterling's net worth is estimated at about $1.9 billion or $1900 million. So we're talking about burning through 5% of his net wealth per year. And while his income is proportionately gargantuan, it's proportionately gargantuan; his net income is probably between $100 and $200 million per year. This little game could easily cut his net income to zero for 2014-2015.
If your total net worth were only $1900 (by comparison, the average American's net worth is about $41,000) and your total income were between $100 and $200 dollars per year.... yeah, I think we could agree that spending $100 a year on TTRPG stuff is pretty foolish.
That's why statistics are worse than lies. His mass of wealth changes the game. Anyone could live virtually any lifestyle they chose for their entire life with $100 million in the bank. Anything beyond that is useful solely for buying legacy and screwing other people (both over and in bed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NHL was interested in Vick? Wow.
His mass of wealth changes the game. Anyone could live virtually any lifestyle they chose for their entire life with $100 million in the bank. Anything beyond that is useful solely for buying legacy and screwing other people (both over and in bed.)
Yes, but those are specifically things that we know he is very interested in and does for fun.
Pouring money into unwinnable lawsuits isn't something that he's known to do for fun, and is very likely to cut into the things we do know he likes to do.
No, he didn't, but he was incarcerated for nearly two years, lost his job (the Falcons tried to trade him but failed), lost his endorsement deals, and ended up filing for bankruptcy before he found a team willing to sign him.
In other words, the guy suffered a tremendous amount of backlash, legal and otherwise. No, the NHL wasn't directly responsible for it, but in this case there were plenty of other institutions willing to mete out punishment.
"Tremendous" is apparently a subjective term, and by degrees when compared to what he did, doesn't cut it here.
He and his crew laughed when he gave stolen pet dogs over to fighting pits to blood them.He spent 3 million dollars on bullcrap in the three months before he shipped off to the hoozegow, so his bankruptcy was on his head. It was a punishment on him, levied by him, for being a piss-poor money manager.
Vick did a live action Saw movie with dogs, man.
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society. This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated. If he was anything ither than white, this wouldn't have gotten press.
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society. This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated. If he was anything ither than white, this wouldn't have gotten press.
Its not character assassination to publish someone's own words and watch as people react naturally to them. The only difference now is we can easily reach a larger audience and people have realized they don't have to put up with bullshit.
Also relevant:Free speech. Especially the hovertext.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.
This however only seems to be a question of "free speech" when it comes to rich people saying racist/sexist/oppressive crap.
I mean, I work as a janitor at a factory. If I express an unpopular opinion - say for example, "we should overthrow capitalism, take control of the means of production and lock away all the CEOs and throw away the key", and I get fired for that, no-one is going to come to my defense with "ze shouldn't have their career attacked because ze holds an unpopular opinion!". The discussion won't even occur, there won't even
But when there's a billionaire spewing racist crap and potentially losing part of their business, it's suddenly an important discussion whether free speech is damaged by things like this.
|
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!
I'm not trying to deflect; and I know it's not the NBA, but.....Michael Vick didn't exactly get a lifetime ban from the NFL for torturing dogs.
No, he didn't, but he was incarcerated for nearly two years, lost his job (the Falcons tried to trade him but failed), lost his endorsement deals, and ended up filing for bankruptcy before he found a team willing to sign him.
In other words, the guy suffered a tremendous amount of backlash, legal and otherwise. No, the NHL wasn't directly responsible for it, but in this case there were plenty of other institutions willing to mete out punishment.
Vick got a second chance, could there be an opportunity for Sterling to do the same here?
No, he didn't, but he was incarcerated for nearly two years, lost his job (the Falcons tried to trade him but failed), lost his endorsement deals, and ended up filing for bankruptcy before he found a team willing to sign him.
In other words, the guy suffered a tremendous amount of backlash, legal and otherwise. No, the NHL wasn't directly responsible for it, but in this case there were plenty of other institutions willing to mete out punishment.
"Tremendous" is apparently a subjective term, and by degrees when compared to what he did, doesn't cut it here.
He and his crew laughed when he gave stolen pet dogs over to fighting pits to blood them.He spent 3 million dollars on bullcrap in the three months before he shipped off to the hoozegow, so his bankruptcy was on his head. It was a punishment on him, levied by him, for being a piss-poor money manager.
hm. Interesting perspective.
Similar to how some people view drug revenue and a life after crime.
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society. This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated. If he was anything ither than white, this wouldn't have gotten press.
so its my fault if im offended by what he says and how he runs his real estate business? Your wet noodle condemnation of his views comes dangerously close to encouragement.
|
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!
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talking
Also relevant:Free speech. Especially the hovertext.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.This however only seems to be a question of "free speech" when it comes to rich people saying racist/sexist/oppressive crap.
I mean, I work as a janitor at a factory. If I express an unpopular opinion - say for example, "we should overthrow capitalism, take control of the means of production and lock away all the CEOs and throw away the key", and I get fired for that, no-one is going to come to my defense with "ze shouldn't have their career attacked because ze holds an unpopular opinion!". The discussion won't even occur, there won't even
But when there's a billionaire spewing racist crap and potentially losing part of their business, it's suddenly an important discussion whether free speech is damaged by things like this.
|
|
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society. This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated. If he was anything ither than white, this wouldn't have gotten press.so its my fault if im offended by what he says and how he runs his real estate business? Your wet noodle condemnation of his views comes dangerously close to encouragement.
If you are equally offended by other people (particularly minorities) making similar statements and engaging in similar business fine. If this is because HE (white male) said them it might be a problem. Thickness of skin seems entirely dictated by who is saying things for most people these days.
Not really.Also relevant:Free speech. Especially the hovertext.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.This however only seems to be a question of "free speech" when it comes to rich people saying racist/sexist/oppressive crap.
I mean, I work as a janitor at a factory. If I express an unpopular opinion - say for example, "we should overthrow capitalism, take control of the means of production and lock away all the CEOs and throw away the key", and I get fired for that, no-one is going to come to my defense with "ze shouldn't have their career attacked because ze holds an unpopular opinion!". The discussion won't even occur, there won't even
But when there's a billionaire spewing racist crap and potentially losing part of their business, it's suddenly an important discussion whether free speech is damaged by things like this.
That is easily handled by not completing the "where I work" line on your FB profile. When others see you on FB one of the first pieces of info they get about you is where you are employed. Saying something on Facebook is the same as standing in your uniform and saying it to a crowd of folks.
If you wouldn't say it in your uniform in a crowd, then don't say it on Facebook.
Not really.That is easily handled by not completing the "where I work" line on your FB profile. When others see you on FB one of the first pieces of info they get about you is where you are employed. Saying something on Facebook is the same as standing in your uniform and saying it to a crowd of folks.
If you wouldn't say it in your uniform in a crowd, then don't say it on Facebook.
The point was the claim that these issues are only related to rich white men. Such a belief is both false and ignorant.
If you are equally offended by other people (particularly minorities) making similar statements and engaging in similar business fine. If this is because HE (white male) said them it might be a problem. Thickness of skin seems entirely dictated by who is saying things for most people these days.With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society. This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated. If he was anything ither than white, this wouldn't have gotten press.so its my fault if im offended by what he says and how he runs his real estate business? Your wet noodle condemnation of his views comes dangerously close to encouragement.
yes, I am. What he said in the recorded conversation and did in his business practices is WRONG, no matter what group is being talked about or discriminated against in housing.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talking
He has a right to hold whatever opinion he wants. He can even express those opinions, as long as doing so does not violate any law (i.e. - communicating threats, inciting to riot, hate speech, etc.). When he expressed opinions become public however, everyone then has the right to respond to said opinion. That is also part of being a society of free speech, being able to respond negatively to comments and/or opinion with which you disagree.
He is not being attacked "for talking". He is, however, receiving the repercussions of holding a vastly unpopular opinion and having that be public. That is the way things work in a free society. Sure, you have the freedom to say almost anything you want to say, but you have to be willing to face the possible repercussions for saying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talking
Except he *does* have a right to an opinion - he hasn't been prosecuted for what he said. His rights do not extend, however, to his opinion being treated as acceptable by private individuals and companies.
He has to suffer the consequences meted upon him by society for having and expressing that opinion, as should anyone with any opinion. That's how we as a society let people know what is and isn't an acceptable opinion to have and express within the community. That's how we get our fellow human beings to "play nice" with one another when it comes to unsociable behavior that there's no actual laws to prevent. Society is simply imposing sanctions upon him for having an unacceptable opinion, the same we may boycott a fast food company if we found out they were exploiting workers or how we may boycott a game developer that decides to withdraw support for our favorite game.
tl;dr - Sure, he can be a dick if he wants, but that also means he is going to be treated like one.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talking
He had every right to say what he said. Now he is having to deal with the consequences.
The same way anyone who expresses an opinion has to, be it '4th Edition ruined D&D' or 'liberalism is a mental disorder'.
|
|
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things? Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like. Sorry i don't people should be attacked for talkingHe had every right to say what he said. Now he is having to deal with the consequences.
The same way anyone who expresses an opinion has to, be it '4th Edition ruined D&D' or 'liberalism is a mental disorder'.
except they do not face millions in fines and attempt to force him to lose ownership of what he lawfully owns
I do find the idea that people are going to turn against the NBA if this guy wasn't punished as laughable. Here is a few reasons:
except they do not face millions in fines and attempt to force him to lose ownership of what he lawfully owns
Those penalties are not being levied by the government, but by a private party and in accordance with contract.
I get that it sucks to have your privacy invaded -- I do -- but there is no freedom of speech issue here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
except they do not face millions in fines and attempt to force him to lose ownership of what he lawfully owns
Perhaps he shouldn't have signed the NBA's contract that gives them the right to do so, then.
You really don't have any idea how franchise arrangements work, do you? The NBA's documents are pretty closely held, but there's a McDonalds franchise agreement available online, courtesy of the SEC. I draw your attention specifically to section 22.3.
22.3 Remedies.
22.3.1 Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of a Material Breach, McDonald’s, at its option, may take anyone or more of the following actions:
(a) In the case of any Material Breach, other than any Material Breach specified in Section 22.2.11(a):
(i) Terminate this Agreement, in whole or, in McDonald’s sole discretion, with respect to any one or more Territories identified by McDonald’s as being affected by such Material Breach or to which such Material Breach may be attributable, directly or indirectly; or
(ii) Subject to Section 22.3.1(b), exercise the Call Option with respect to all of the Territories, or in McDonald’s sole discretion, with respect to one or more Territories identified by McDonald’s as being affected by such Material Breach or to which such Material Breach may be attributable, in either case directly or indirectly;
Stripped of the legalese,... "screw up ("upon the occurrence of a Material Breach"), and we have the right ("McDonald's may") to buy you out ("exercise the Call Option")". The Call Option is defined earlier, and among other things, sets the price at which McDonald's can buy you out, which may or may not have any relationship to the value you set on your restaurant(s).
If you sign it, you lose the right to keep your McD's absolutely. But if you don't sign it, you don't get a McD's at all.
"Tremendous" is apparently a subjective term,
Tremendous when compared to what Sterling has been dealing with, which many irate conservatives are calling tremendous.
and by degrees when compared to what he did, doesn't cut it here.
He and his crew laughed when he gave stolen pet dogs over to fighting pits to blood them.
It was pretty sick, I'll give you that. My point was that he did suffer real consequences. There's no way that you can argue that losing two years of your life in your prime isn't severe. Severity was warranted, and he got it.
He spent 3 million dollars on bullcrap in the three months before he shipped off to the hoozegow, so his bankruptcy was on his head.
Well of course it was. But he would have been fine if he hadn't lost his (rather substantial) income. He spent irresponsibly, but he could afford to spend irresponsibly. Right up until he couldn't.
With the NSA, we are now living in the beginning of Orwell's 1984 type of society.
Oh, is this the moment where it starts? So I should just cross out the fifty moments in the past where conservatives claimed we were living in Orwell's 1984, then? But this time it's for real, right? I just want to make sure.
This is just more support for complete and total character assassination of having an opposing view for fear of offending someone or some group. A whole generation of people have grown up without being taught how to have a thick skin and let garbage roll off your shoulders. I agree that Sterling's views belong in the sewer. I detest his ideals, I do not cobdone or agree with him, it doesn't mean his character, such as it is, needs to be annihilated.
You don't think that his character should suffer for having a glaring character flaw?
Do you even understand what you're saying?
The man's a huge racist. We're supposed to act like his character isn't affected by that revelation?
Come the hell on, Gendo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is a racist dick, but if he has no right to an opinion, to speak his mind then why do others get free reign to say and DO worse things?
He absolutely has the right to an opinion. And we have a right to an opinion of his opinion. And the NBA has a right to exercise its private power to sanction him for his opinion. Yay, freedom!
Or are you not in favor of freedom? It really sounds like you're mostly in favor of freedom for people with stereotypically conservative views, but when it comes to freedom for people who think stereotypically conservative views ought to rot, you couldn't care less.
Does that about sum it up, Andrew? You like freedom as long as it only goes one-way? It's sort of a running theme for you, isn't it?
Also part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech we do not like.
And part of being a society of free speech is occasionally hearing speech you don't like about speech we don't like. Suck it up.
except they do not face millions in fines and attempt to force him to lose ownership of what he lawfully owns
You seem to think he straight up owns the Clippers, in the same way you might own a can of soda you buy from a vending machine.
That is wrong.
Go read up on what owning an NBA franchise means. Then come back, and explain to us in three to four sentences what you've found out.