Banned for life

[tomBitonti]

Some additional questions ...

Without know the exact agreement to which NBA owners are held, if we assume a "don't make us look bad" type of statement, in case of a dispute, who gets to make the decision, and who can prevent the decision from taking effect?

Let's change the issue from racist statements to statements taken out of context, say, by a news campaign which wants to smear an individual. Let's say that a lot of bad publicity arises from the statements and the news campaign.

Then, if the NBA decided to drop the hammer and force out one of the members, could the member dispute this? That is, in the sense that the decision could be held until decided by a resolving body, such as a court or an arbitration panel?

A part of the problem that folks seem to have is whether or not the NBA is being fair to use the racist comments which were made. Free speech doesn't apply, but are there no issues of fairness which can be applied? Is there 100% strict liability, in that, even if the alternate case which I described holds, where statements are very clearly taken out of context, and used in an aggressive smear campaign, could the member still be forced out?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Without know the exact agreement to which NBA owners are held, if we assume a "don't make us look bad" type of statement, in case of a dispute, who gets to make the decision, and who can prevent the decision from taking effect?

Short answers:

1) "who decides" is determined by the internal structure & procedures of the organization

2) the court system can prevent the organization's decision if they rule that those internal structures and procedures violated the law.

Let's change the issue from racist statements to statements taken out of context, say, by a news campaign which wants to smear an individual. Let's say that a lot of bad publicity arises from the statements and the news campaign.

Then, if the NBA decided to drop the hammer and force out one of the members, could the member dispute this? That is, in the sense that the decision could be held until decided by a resolving body, such as a court or an arbitration panel?

A part of the problem that folks seem to have is whether or not the NBA is being fair to use the racist comments which were made. Free speech doesn't apply, but are there no issues of fairness which can be applied? Is there 100% strict liability, in that, even if the alternate case which I described holds, where statements are very clearly taken out of context, and used in an aggressive smear campaign, could the member still be forced out?

Well, Sterling HAS decided to contest the NBA disciplinary actions in court. Depending on particulars we can't know, this could wind up before an arbitration panel as well as/instead of the courts.

Beyond the issues of actually breaking the law, the really isn't a "fairness" issue that can be raised. I mean, you can still try to bring actions in equity, but they're rarely successful.

And as for 100% strict liability, again, that's a matter of the organization's rules and the contracts that get signed to be a member of it. The law will only intrude into an organizations' self-regulatory powers if they actually violate the law.

 

[Dannager]

The LA Times is now reporting that the NBA has alleged that Sterling deliberately tampered with and destroyed evidence, including asking Stiviano to lie about the recording. This guy doesn't know how to do anything but double down.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, that could damn well seal the deal.

If true, he won't be able to succeed with any kind of equity argument, and no judge will give his attorneys any kind of leeway in their arguments before the bench.

Hell, it may even give the NBA fresh grounds to toss him. IOW, even if his legal team somehow succeeded in having the courts vacate the NBA's punishment for the leaked rant- assuming it doesn't get the case tossed without a hearing- proof that he destroyed evidence and tampered with witnesses in the case could get him a bigger fine and cost him ownership of the Clippers.

It could also get him disbarred.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Again, he's being kicked out of a private organization for costing them money and damaging their brand image/identity. And the basis for the NBA's ability to do this is a membership contract he voluntarily signed.

Are you saying that an experienced businessman and lawyer should not be held accountable to abide by the terms and conditions of contracts he signs?

And why is what he said costing the organization money? Cuz of the witch hunt mentality of our society. If people could separate what someone says from what they do this wouldn't happen. It didn't happen cuz people want blood. They enjoy the power trip even if it doesn't make sense. We've all been forgiven for saying something terrible and we'd all like to be forgiven for thinking things worse than that. Now, for disgusting reasons, once it hits the public forgiveness is an impossibility because it won't sate the rage. And that's why people are oversensitive and do look for offense because they enjoy raking people over the coals for things similar to stuff they themselves have been forgiven for - and expected that forgiveness, too.

And obviously I'm going a bit out of bounds here. To me, this is bigger than Sterling. A lot bigger. And it's being used as a political weapon as well. That's as dangerous as you can get and letting any of it slide, IMO, is letting far too much go.

No, you didn't. But you insist on acting like a grievous injustice was committed against Sterling because a conversation whose details he probably wanted to keep between him and his girlfriend was instead heard by far more.

No, I don't. I'm saying there's some injustice and I'm saying he was wronged. I've also said I get the NBA's position on the matter and understand their rights. What I've consistently argued against is that his specific to this case words were effectively actions in his NBA business. They were not and that's why the punishment seems extreme.

Except that there's no hypersensitivity or looking-for-offense going on here. I hate that stuff, too, but the guy said some truly, horrifically racist things. We're not talking about stuff that could maybe be construed as racism if you tilt your head. He knew what he was saying, he knew the potential consequences if his racism ever came to light, he knew who he was saying it to, and he said those things anyway.

I was pretty off topic when saying that bit. I kinda got carried away with my thoughts on the more global problem this one incident is simply one small example of.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

Generally I agree that people are overly sensitive and too quick to take offense. But in this instance the guy said some outrageously racist things, and that shouldn't be ignored either. I see this as a situation where there are two potential wrongs: the first is sterlings very clear and obvious racism (and any possibility that he was speaking in anger or misunderstood was pretty much eliminated during that apology of his), the second is the recording itself. If the recording was consensual then it is fair game in my opinion.

I think it is possible to be disgusted by sterling but also be concerned about the nature of privacy and eavesdropping in the country.

All he did was say stuff. He never acted on any of it and that, to me, is a pretty damned important distinction. Again, we'd all be in jail because we've all probably said we'd like to harm someone at some point in our lives. I absolutely cannot allow the thought that we can take something from someone for something they said to go unchallenged. Too many awful things have been done because of exactly that. If you don't fall exactly into line with what we think, well, you're SOL or worse. We've seen what happens when religion or a political movement takes that tack and yet we don't seem to care too much about the trend toward this now. Sterling isn't alone - this crap happens pretty much every day for things a lot less offensive than what he said. And that's what we care about over anything that's actually happening around us (politics - can't be more specific).

Meh, it's sickening to me and it's scary that no one cares. It's not like we only go after racists. Hell, we paint people as racist when they aren't just so we can go after 'em. This is just an example of the way bad place we're heading. I was reminded of this quote in a different conversation yesterday and I find it once again in my mind:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Grr ... dirty formatting ... anyhoo, I'm not saying we need to stand up for what Sterling said, I'm saying we need to stand up for his right to say it. It's all happy kitty kat peaches an' cream until you're the one that finds yourself on the outs with contemporary thought. If you don't believe that's possible, just look at the news and see some of the unbelievable stuff people have to apologize for saying now. The 'Right to Remain Unoffended' stuff really does pose a real danger. This is just an example.

By the way, I'm with you in the 'disgusted but concerned' camp. What he said was terrible but bleep, man, we've all said terrible stuff.



​

 

[Bedrockgames]

All he did was say stuff. He never acted on any of it and that, to me, is a pretty damned important distinction. Again, we'd all be in jail because we've all probably said we'd like to harm someone at some point in our lives. I absolutely cannot allow the thought that we can take something from someone for something they said to go unchallenged. Too many awful things have been done because of exactly that. If you don't fall exactly into line with what we think, well, you're SOL or worse. We've seen what happens when religion or a political movement takes that tack and yet we don't seem to care too much about the trend toward this now. Sterling isn't alone - this crap happens pretty much every day for things a lot less offensive than what he said. And that's what we care about over anything that's actually happening around us (politics - can't be more specific).

sts. Hell, we paint

I think there are all sorts of examples of people taking offense where it isn't warranted, open discussion being hampered by things like trigger warnings or crusaders who go after anyone who doesn't adopt the approved manner of speaking about these sorts of things...but this wasn't a case of a guy being misunderstood, being crude or just making an attempt at humor, a bit insensitive, he was being pretty blatantly racist. Now i agree that the recording itself may be an issue if it was illegally obtained, becasue the right to privacy is important. But i do not think someone who somes out and says classically racist things can expect no fallout. And it isnt like we are doing anything to the man, the NBA is doing it. It is just the product of belonging to an organization. When you sign up for that kind of entity, you agree to be held liable for certain things, and that can inlcude maintaining the public image of the organization.

I do think there are plenty of instances in comedy, academia, the arts, and even gaming where crusading for political correctness has gone too far and has inhibited discussion. I do not believe this is such a case.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Grr ... dirty formatting ... anyhoo, I'm not saying we need to stand up for what Sterling said, I'm saying we need to stand up for his right to say it. It's all happy kitty kat peaches an' cream until you're the one that finds yourself on the outs with contemporary thought. If you don't believe that's possible, just look at the news and see some of the unbelievable stuff people have to apologize for saying now. The 'Right to Remain Unoffended' stuff really does pose a real danger. This is just an example.

By the way, I'm with you in the 'disgusted but concerned' camp. What he said was terrible but bleep, man, we've all said terrible stuff.



​

He still has every right to say those things. Look i am with you on the point that people are way too eager to be offended and almost where it like a badge of pride anytime someone makes a minor mistep or doesn't speak in the most current form of politically correct lingo. But the guy said some prett reprehensible things that no amount of context is going to improve. And we do not need to start comparing him to holocaust victims. He is being penalized by a private organization that he belongs to, not imprisoned and killed by a government that dislikes his heritage.

 

[Dannager]

No, I don't. I'm saying there's some injustice and I'm saying he was wronged.

Except you don't know that there is, and you don't know that he was. There is no evidence either way, so far. Instead of taking the neutral position ("We don't know what happened, so I'll reserve judgment on whether harm was dealt to him until we know more.") you are taking the affirmative position ("We don't know what happened, but I'm going to assume that he was dealt harm regardless."). It's worth asking why you've decided to do that.

I've also said I get the NBA's position on the matter and understand their rights. What I've consistently argued against is that his specific to this case words were effectively actions in his NBA business. They were not and that's why the punishment seems extreme.

His words jeopardized more than a dozen corporate sponsorships of the league, causing real harm to the association's finances. It doesn't matter that they were "just words". This is a perfect example of the sort of damage words alone can cause.

Why are you so emphatic that words don't count when everything we're seeing demonstrates that they very clearly do?

All he did was say stuff.

Words have consequences. If you believe differently, you are wrong.

He never acted on any of it and that, to me, is a pretty damned important distinction.

And, to the rest of us, it isn't a terribly important distinction. Acting on it would have been worse, but at that point it's just a matter of degrees.

Again, we'd all be in jail because we've all probably said we'd like to harm someone at some point in our lives.

This is a total non-sequitur.

I absolutely cannot allow the thought that we can take something from someone for something they said to go unchallenged.

You absolutely will allow it, because you absolutely have no power to do anything about it. Words matter, period. That's how the world you live in works. That's how the world you live in has always worked.

Too many awful things have been done because of exactly that.

Which is why we have first amendment protections from the government. Which this has nothing to do with.

If you don't fall exactly into line with what we think, well, you're SOL or worse.

YES. If you're a private organization, you have the freedom to exercise your legal power over those you feel you need to distance yourself from when they do something for which their contract provides consequences.

We've seen what happens when religion or a political movement takes that tack and yet we don't seem to care too much about the trend toward this now.

This is neither religious nor political. This is a private organization taking legal action against a private individual.

Sterling isn't alone - this crap happens pretty much every day for things a lot less offensive than what he said. And that's what we care about over anything that's actually happening around us (politics - can't be more specific).

Then reserve your outrage for those things.

Grr ... dirty formatting ... anyhoo, I'm not saying we need to stand up for what Sterling said, I'm saying we need to stand up for his right to say it.

NO ONE IS CHALLENGING HIS RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING.

You need to internalize that. No one has stopped him from saying anything. Which is why he has been able to go on talk and news shows and continue to say incredibly racist things in the intervening weeks. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been killed. He hasn't had his tongue cut out.

But that doesn't mean that he has the right to avoid all consequences from non-government entities for what he has said. He doesn't get to. We, as private citizens, are free to do whatever we wish (within our legal rights) to demonstrate our disapproval. And that includes the NBA exercising the clause of its contract with him (a contract he willingly signed) to punish him.

It's all happy kitty kat peaches an' cream until you're the one that finds yourself on the outs with contemporary thought. If you don't believe that's possible, just look at the news and see some of the unbelievable stuff people have to apologize for saying now. The 'Right to Remain Unoffended' stuff really does pose a real danger. This is just an example.

No, it isn't. This is you trying to twist a non-issue into a banner for your personal crusade against political correctness. And we all know it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And why is what he said costing the organization money? Cuz of the witch hunt mentality of our society.

1) Because most advertisers don't want to be associated with a racist. As such, they threatened or actually did withdraw advertising dollars from the Clippers and the league.

2) Because the players don't want to be associated with a racist- especially minority players in the context of racist "owners". As such, they threatened a league wide work stoppage.

If people could separate what someone says from what they do this wouldn't happen.

His words are just the latest episode in a known pattern- the hateful cherry on the top of his racist sundae, if you will- including antagonizing his own players.

I'm saying there's some injustice and I'm saying he was wronged. I've also said I get the NBA's position on the matter and understand their rights. What I've consistently argued against is that his specific to this case words were effectively actions in his NBA business. They were not and that's why the punishment seems extreme.

What injustice?

Sorry, but the NBA is a private organization. He doesn't own the Clippers outright- he's a franchise owner who gets to operate the franchise with the permission of the NBA, subject to their rules, by the force of the contract he signed. If he had acted and spoken analogously as the operator of a MacDonald's franchise, he could have similarly been stripped of his rights to own & operate.

Such contract clauses get upheld in court all day, every day. And as a lawyer & businessman, he knew that.

The only injustice that might have occurred is if the NBA violated its own procedures or state/federal law in disciplining him, which is what he's alleging in his lawsuit...which lawsuit he may have torpedoed by his own actions if the LA times article is correct.

As for words as actions? Again, the law has no problem with that. Familiarize yourself with the restrictions to free speech & association under the Uniform Code of Military Justice sometime. Or what happens to secular employees of religious groups who get fired for things they said on Facebook.

In short, "mere words" have been enough to get you in trouble under the Common Law for several hundred years, now, depending on what those words were, how they were said, and when/where.