Jazz reaction to the Sterling ban.

[DutchJazzer]

Freedom as a concept has to have the limit of "not attacking others' freedoms". Otherwise it is not freedom. It is going back to the primitive-communal age.

how did sterling (succesfullye) attacked others freedom?

 

[9erute]

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

Agree

 

[DutchJazzer]

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.

fixed b****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stifle Tower]

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.

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.

 

[Doublea]

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

 

[Tarkanian]

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

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]

how did sterling (succesfullye) attacked others freedom?

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.

 

[richgates]

I haven't . I just read it and yup I am spot on. Hahaha

You are either a very good troll, or lack a fundamental understanding of the first amendment. Perhaps both.

 

[Bill]

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.

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

 

[Bill]

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]

You are either a very good troll, or lack a fundamental understanding of the first amendment. Perhaps both.

I am just not afraid to stand up for what is right. The punishment is far to severe. Bottom line

 

[richgates]

I am just not afraid to stand up for what is right. The punishment is far to severe. Bottom line

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.