Tarkanian
Well-Known Member
I knew it.
but seriously, it may only be a tad legalist, that's all!
add-on:
nice and easy read here;
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm
Jazz reaction to the Sterling ban.
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
but seriously, it may only be a tad legalist, that's all!
add-on:
nice and easy read here;
https://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm
enchilada_style
Well-Known Member
This is why the words that he said have such an impact because he is the owner of multimillion dollar business. If you said these things you'd still probably have a job at Hostess.
I know, it's really not that important we should just tear the document up and wipe our asses with it right? I mean shoot only hundreds of thousands men died for it right? Yeah no big deal......
GVC
Well-Known Member
I'm convinced you've never actually read the first amendment.
jope
Well-Known Member
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.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Last post I read in this thread. can of worms
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
Hundreds of thousands died for the freedom to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not so the 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.
Look, the league's actions against Sterling are unrelated to freedom of speech. At best, V. Stiviano should prepare herself for a very ugly lawsuit related to the violation of his privacy, but the only blame to be placed on the league is in having procrastinated taking action against a man with a decades-long track record of apathy and bigotry. On the surface, Sterling is technically being punished for damages his recent actions have caused the league in the form of dropped sponsorships and public perception, and the league took the opportunity to make a strong statement regarding intolerance for bigotry. Beneath the surface, the NBA has a new commissioner who was under the former commissioner that tolerated Sterling's bad behaviors for decades. If I am Adam Silver, I probably look at this situation as the final straw-- as the justification I have always hoped for-- and I do precisely what Adam Silver did yesterday: I garner the support of the other team owners, spell out exactly how Sterling has violated his relationship with the league, and hand out a punishment that removes him from affiliation with the NBA in any way, shape, or form. Is the declared punishment heavy-handed? If it were for this single offense, perhaps yes, but this punishment encompasses much more than that, I assure you-- it is retribution for all the accumulated years of Mr. Sterling simply being an *******. Adam Silver is doing everything in his power to take the most from Sterling he possibly can, because he finally has the power and the justification to take any action at all.
Don Sterling, in the meantime, in the aftermath of the eventual sale of the Clippers franchise, will walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars. His wife will stay with him for his money, and he will keep his business empire and his possessions. Gold-digging women will still climb into bed with him, and tolerate his bigotry, in exchange for a piece of it. He can and will continue to say whatever he wants to whomever he wants, and karma will continue to bite him in the ***-- because it looks like it's finally caught up with the old *******.
framer
Well-Known Member
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.
However, as a Jazz fan, #### the Clippers, burn that mutha down. Turmoil in that organization doesn't even hurt us a little.
Last edited:
I am curious if Kobe Bryant gets a lifetime ban the next time he makes a homophobic remark, especially given that there are now openly gay players in the NBA.
https://www.dailynews.com/20110413/lakers-kobe-bryant-fined-100000-for-homophobic-slur
https://www.dailynews.com/20110413/lakers-kobe-bryant-fined-100000-for-homophobic-slur
DutchJazzer
Banned
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:
DutchJazzer
Banned
will it ban me from the nba.
because i chose a white man to do instead of a black man?
what if i chose to do jeremy linn what then