Banned for life

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I said before, if Doc Rivers wants to say f-you and refuse to come back, if his players want to do more than wear their jerseys inside out and instead all bail as soon as they're able or refuse to play until they're traded, if the concession workers all walk out and quit, if the fans cancel their season tickets and refuse to show up, if the fans at home refuse to watch a game, well that's great. That's how this should play out. They're adults who can - and should have the right to - make their own decisions.

Actually, we know that the NBAPA held a league-wide conference call on Monday, and the NBA was facing the possibility of a full walkout if The Commish didn't take quick and harsh action.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...". The NBA is not a branch of the US government

Sterling willingly did business with the NBA, and thereby personally and willfully agreed to their rules and rulings.

Exactly. If the league wanted to, it could fine/suspend its members for even non-criminal acts that are deemed to be against league policy. Sport leagues do that all the time.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

EDIT: You know what? What's the point in even responding to the stuff in this thread...

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Again, I'm not arguing that the NBA didn't have a right to do what they did.Sponsors dropping his team is what should happen, though. That's how this stuff needs to work.

The NBA did what any other company would do to someone that damaged it's image and brand. If you did something to make your company look bad, you'd get fired.

And this is the problem with making private conversations public: People refuse to consider the context. As I explained ot goldo above, he wasn't saying that Magic Johnson couldn't come to his games or buy tickets to them. He never said black people shouldn't show up or that they should be refused service. That's not even close to what he said and yet that's the way it's being presented. I have to wonder how many of the outraged folks out there even know what they're outraged about.

You make it sound as if just because he said something in private, he hasn't done anything that could be considered discrimination against employees or fans. He already has a track record of discrimination against minorities. The butterfly that it has come out regarding his other business dealings, does not mean it hasn't occurred in the Clippers organization.

Not just that. This racist should also have been forced to read out loud Dan Gilbert's whiney letter about LeBron until his tongue fell out, too.

There's a special place in hell for people like you, you monster!

As I said before, if Doc Rivers wants to say f-you and refuse to come back, if his players want to do more than wear their jerseys inside out and instead all bail as soon as they're able or refuse to play until they're traded, if the concession workers all walk out and quit, if the fans cancel their season tickets and refuse to show up, if the fans at home refuse to watch a game, well that's great. That's how this should play out. They're adults who can - and should have the right to - make their own decisions.

They are bound by contracts. They may want to leave, and I think one of the Clippers' players said as much, but he has a contract. NPR had some legal guy on there talking about how that was a possibility if he had something about hostile work environment or something like that. So yeah, they can want to leave, but they are restricted by their contracts. Just like Sterling is bound by his contract.

We need to tread very carefully when we punish people for what they say instead of what they do.

Why? They are both behaviors.

Yeah, I must have been drunk.

You must have.

See my explanation above as to why the suck is not a valid reason to boot the guy. And yeah, 'ruin' was a really dumb word to choose.

Of course it's not a valid reason on it's own. Taken with everything else, it's just another notch in the boot him column.

Ok, that's great. So what's next? What thing as a people do we decide that we do or don't like should we force everyone else to like or not or be punished in some way?

Whatever society decides. That's how it generally works. We have social norms, and those that violate those norms suffer the consequences. Besides, it's not like he is being criminally charged and punished with jail time. He is getting kicked out of a group. It happens all the time. You can see it in school kids. All these social cliques have similar rules and consequences. You do something that violates the group's rules, yo get ostracized from it.

Had he done something racist this would be different. He didn't. Nobody was even actually banned from the facility. He told her not to bring people but never said they'd be physically prevented from entering the arena. The bottom line is that we've seen no proof he did anything at all.

He has done racist things. Look at his troubles with his real estate stuff and discriminating against minorities. You can't just take what he said in the phone call and quarantine it. It's not like this guy is a racist, except when he is dealing with the Clippers. He hates black people renting in Beverly hills, but he loves black people when it has to do with basketball, unless his girlfriend brings them to a basketball game, then he hates them, unless they are players, but he might hate the other employees if they are black, unless they come to the game as a paying fan, etc.

 

[Kramodlog]

Ok, since the NBA has said any bigot comments gets you banned for life and this is zero tolerance issue. Will they follow it up if a player, coach, employee put their foot in their mouth?

Only if some tape or video goes public.

 

[Kramodlog]

Hell yeah it matters. It wasn't for public dissemination. Context matters a lot.

What does it change?

Context. He didn't say he didn't want black fans to buy tickets, he told the woman he pays to be his companion he'd appreciate it if she refrained from bringing certain people to the games. He never said they couldn't buy their own tickets.

It doesn't make his comment less racist.

It's supposed to be Constitutionally protected right now. This ain't Canadia.

It is probably protected more in Canada than in the US. The US Constitution in the only protects against guberment interference. The Charter of Rights in Canada protects free speech:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(a) freedom of conscience and religion;</dd><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;</dd><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and</dd><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(d) freedom of association.</dd></dl>

Hate speech is an exception in Canada, but who would want to protect hate speech?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

It is probably protected more in Canada than in the US. The US Constitution in the only protects against guberment interference.

You will find that the US courts have "interpreted" that part of the 1st Amendment to apply beyond merely dealing with permission to dis the government, as well as there being exceptions where the government may indeed force you to shut up. There are a great many "rights" which courts have "found to exist" in the US constitution that simply are in no way, shape or form actually addressed therein. It is a matter of continuing to follow legal precedent as much (or more!) than the actual words of the constitution. This is why some justices are referred to as, "strict constructionists," because they balk a bit more at just making stuff up on their own.

 

[Kramodlog]

You will find that the US courts have "interpreted" that part of the 1st Amendment to apply beyond merely dealing with permission to dis the government,

I didn't say dissing guberment was limited. I said that the US Constitution targets gubermental intervention as opposed to the Canadian Charter of Rights that protects freedom of speech period.

as well as there being exceptions where the government may indeed force you to shut up.

The fighting words doctrine comes to mind, but it is not really in use anymore. This is just nit picking.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...". The NBA is not a branch of the US government

Sterling willingly did business with the NBA, and thereby personally and willfully agreed to their rules and rulings.



See above - the right to free speech is actually the right to not have the *government* shut you up. It does not protect you from cheesing off private individuals, or making yourself a PR liability to your business partners.

Then we do not have freedom of speech and we need to stop pretending we do. That's fine so long as we're honest.

On the contrary - his stupid behaviors are now threatening to make advertisers drop the team in droves. His stupid ideas are having an impact on the reputation and business of the NBA, thought possible player walkout. Sounds like harm to the business to me.

Yup, advertisers are gonna stop doing business ... with his team. You know, the one he owns. They didn't threaten to stop spending money with The Heat or even The Lakers (who, coincidentally, play in the same facility as The Clippers), they said they'd stop spending their money with Sterling's team. That's a singular impact.

I agree the brand would have been impacted had they decided to do nothing at all. As you've no doubt noticed, however, I've never suggested that that should have been their course of action and, notice also, that I never said they didn't have the right to do what they did.

Most players will be gone in short order - pro-athlete careers are short. Owners can be around a long, long time - Sterling's owned the team since the 1980s. Players are not expected to impact policy, either, while owners are.

Interesting but not accurate. Here's a simple test: Without looking any names up, give me the name of 5 NBA owners. Now give me the names of 5 NBA players. Tell me who, exactly, has the most impact in a public facing way?

I mean, really. How many people buy owners' jerseys? Oh yeah, none.

Also, I should ask - did those players say those things during *this* commissioner's tenure, specifically? If he's new, he may not have had power over the incidents in question, and claims that there is a double standard would then not be well-based.

That's a good question ... sorta. I honestly don't know but it also really doesn't matter. Most people here have said that the NBA did this to Sterling because of the tapes and because of the rumors about his behavior prior to the new commissioner taking his post. If prior actions count for him, they count for the players as well.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

(Uhh ... sorry all for the multiple quotes but I was afraid of running into the text limit)

Actually, we know that the NBAPA held a league-wide conference call on Monday, and the NBA was facing the possibility of a full walkout if The Commish didn't take quick and harsh action.

'Quick and harsh action' allows for more than one action. They didn't demand he be removed permanently, did they? Did they demand the owner's vote?