What's new
By:

Jazz reaction to the Sterling ban.

Sooooo, morally I'm not at all comfortable with how this went down. I mean most people here don't like McCarthyism and the biggest problem with that was private movie studios blacklisting Communists. That was very similar to this. I just don't like it.

However, as a Jazz fan, #### the Clippers, burn that mutha down. Turmoil in that organization doesn't even hurt us a little.
 
Last edited:
Tarkanian said:
freedom of speech cannot protect racial slurs.
it is not what that freedom sets to shield.
racist remarks are only abuses of that right!
Click to expand...

freedom of speech should protect against any THING.
because if we start adding your exception
freedom of speech cannot protect racial slurs.

it will lead to any and all of the following

freedom of speech cannot protect homophobia.
freedom of speech cannot protect sexism.
freedom of speech cannot protect anti disabled speech.
freedom of speech cannot protect blasphemy.
freedom of speech cannot protect religious sermon.
freedom of speech cannot protect political ideals.


SEE man slippery slope
 
Last edited:
olden_undercover said:
hundreds of thousands died for the freedom to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so that everyone inculding donald sterlings of this world could use wealth and a false sense of power as justification to act in a morally and ethically contemptible manner.
Click to expand...

fixed b****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
jope said:
Picture being on a board of officers for a major company (Sterling, and the other 29 owners). if you do something fiscally and disreputably damaging (alienating fans, employees, and sponsors) to the company (the NBA), even if it isnt breaking any laws (freedom of speech), that board has the right to remove you from that position of power (the owners' votes for Sterling's removal), for the preservation of the company (the NBA). --- all of which he agreed to abide by when he became a partner in the NBA entity.

As far as the "intrapment", while i agree it was shady, it is beyond the point now. The damage has been done to the league, and he must reap what he sews. the collective ownership will not stand for their products (their own NBA teams) to be devalued by his incompetence. They will take action to limit the damage. It is foolish to expect otherwise.
Click to expand...
Well said. Employees are fired for offensive tweets or Facebook posts. What's "private" is not usually not so private when you think about it. I'll bet anyone who is married has a ton of their business - good and bad - known by the wife's BFF (or husband's best friend). Private sex tapes are leaked by ex-lovers all the time. It certainly isn't unprecedented. Don't we all recall the ranting of Mel Gibson a few years back? I don't feel sorry for Mr. Sterling. He confided in a high-end call girl. Did he expect this to be kept secret, especially when his wife is suing the $%#^!?

The NBA is a corporation. They have the right to protect their brand. Letting Sterling continue to own the team, even if suspended from visible involvement hurts the brand. He'll make hundreds of millions on the sale.
 
Just because we have freedom of speech, doesn't mean we have to accept something someones says. We can tell that person to leave.

"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 only states that the government can't pass laws against freedom of speech. So if any of these incidents aren't dealing with the government, then it isn't a freedom of speech problem.

So in the sterling incident: "Sterling has a Constitutional right to say what he said, horrible as it is, and not have the federal government silence him or punish him for it. He does not have a right to say what he said and be protected from punishment by a private organization with which he does business." -Boston.com
 
DutchJazzer said:
freedom of speech should protect against any THING.
because if we start adding your exception
freedom of speech cannot protect racial slurs.

it will lead to any and all of the following

freedom of speech cannot protect homophobia.
freedom of speech cannot protect sexism.
freedom of speech cannot protect anti disabled speech.
freedom of speech cannot protect blasphemy.
freedom of speech cannot protect religious sermon.
freedom of speech cannot protect political ideals.


SEE man slippery slope
Click to expand...
I see your point and you are wrong.
freedom of speech does not protect hate speech, racist remarks, defamatory declarations, libelious utterances and plain malevolent curses.

edit: child pornography comes to mind as well. If someone said CP is good and should be fostered, I would break his jaw.
 
addictionary said:
Uh, by banning black friends of his mistress from coming to games and justifying it with supposed racial hierarchy? Racism is against the concept of freedom as we know it.
Click to expand...

He wasn't banning her friends from coming to the game. He was mad she was with them for who knows what ever reason. The man is a dumb *** but stopping people from coming to his games is not something an owner would do
 
If that was true the tards from the Westboro Baptist Church would be screwed but they are not because they are protected by the first ammendment. I find them to be completely ridiculous however I know there is no legal way to stop them.

The only good thing about Sterling is that he is not making those comments in public. It's not hard to record someone saying something bad about others when you get them mad and only record certain parts of the conversation.
 
9erute said:
I am just not afraid to stand up for what is right. The punishment is far to severe. Bottom line
Click to expand...

There is a vast difference between standing up for what YOU believe is right, and decrying a violation of his first amendment rights when it is clear that nothing of the sort occurred.
 
Agree. Way to severe for what was said. Fine him the maximum 1 million an let it go. That's a lot of money and according to their by laws, it's the maximum.
 
This entire issue makes me think of the "Riley Cooper" situation and how the NFL handled it. Compared to Sterling, Cooper got off VERY EASY. They could have thrown him out of the league, instead they gave him an opportunity to apologize and seek counseling. Sterling is getting no such option. Anyone else surprised by this?
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
This entire issue makes me think of the "Riley Cooper" situation and how the NFL handled it. Compared to Sterling, Cooper got off VERY EASY. They could have thrown him out of the league, instead they gave him an opportunity to apologize and seek counseling. Sterling is getting no such option. Anyone else surprised by this?
Click to expand...
yeah that is true. Kobe allegedly raped a girl got way less. People in nfl have killed people and have gotten way less. That alone shows how far out of wack this has become
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top