NBA investigates Clippers owner Donald Sterling for racism

[drdiags]

HFSD1. Not quite sure why, but some Blacks and Jewish folks have had issues with one another. See the infamous Jessie Jackson description of New York. The world is one crazy ride. A lot of wasted energies.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Sounds like the racist doesn't want to sell his team and will sue the NBA.
I hope the racist and NBA NUKE each other in court and there is nothing left of each except smoldering rubble. I'll have my popcorn ready. :th2thumbs:

Lawyers aren't even taking Sterlings case, he's done.

There really isn't anything to hit the nba with, Silver released the NBA's constitution and bylaws just before the press conference, for the first time in ever we can read their secret fraternity rules and stuff. And nothing in those guidelines did Silver or the NBA violate.

NBA still stands, long live the NBA. Sterling will die a confused, shamed, lonely and clipperless death.

You are forgetting he is a billionaire who could buy the best lawyers money can buy reguardless of how frivolous it may or may not be. He is everything you say he is and probably worse......but if he wants to he will get a pound of flesh from the NBA.

 

[Throwdown]

Sounds like the racist doesn't want to sell his team and will sue the NBA.
I hope the racist and NBA NUKE each other in court and there is nothing left of each except smoldering rubble. I'll have my popcorn ready. :th2thumbs:

Lawyers aren't even taking Sterlings case, he's done.

There really isn't anything to hit the nba with, Silver released the NBA's constitution and bylaws just before the press conference, for the first time in ever we can read their secret fraternity rules and stuff. And nothing in those guidelines did Silver or the NBA violate.

NBA still stands, long live the NBA. Sterling will die a confused, shamed, lonely and clipperless death.

You are forgetting he is a billionaire who could buy the best lawyers money can buy reguardless of how frivolous it may or may not be. He is everything you say he is and probably worse......but if he wants to he will get a pound of flesh from the NBA.

If he does, I don't think Silver would even care lol, Silver just wants him gone. Also this is a good platform if this does go to trial to see if Silvers commitment to transparency that he's talked about since becoming the commissioner is actually for real, or if he's just blowing smoke trying to win adoration from fans.

 

[HansGruber]

You haven't been paying attention. That is the first thing I asked. I know, it's the internet and generalities work better.

I avoided reading any articles about it because I refuse to be emotionally manipulated by the media. The media loves racism because it makes it easier to sell you Pizza Pockets and Diet Coke. I refuse to have products marketed to me in this fashion by morally-bankrupt hucksters.

However, I hate to be wrong on facts, so I did spend a few minutes reading the details. Some other lowlife, V. Sciviano, is the one manipulating the torch-wielding mobs in a transparent attempt to extort money from Sterling. My points remain the same, only the names change.

Sterling is a stupid old racist. Who cares? Old people tend to have outdated views. However, they are still humans and still deserve that most basic human right of all - privacy. Sterling was being a racist in private and it should have stayed that way.

And frankly, that is to me the worst thing in all of this. What is the point of getting upset about racism if you live in a world where nobody is allowed privacy? Privacy is the most important of all human rights.

Without privacy, we are naked wild animals in a zoo, copulating and defecating for the amusement of imbeciles. Our entire lives become a form of entertainment to some slack-jawed "viewer" waiting for the next tragedy to amuse them.

 

[Throwdown]

So Hans, in your opinion even when the tape leaked (as unlawful as it was) do you think the NBA should protect itself and its interests (one being the Clippers)? The views got heard whether it was unlawfully leaked or not, the players weren't going to play for him, the league was on the verge of near mutiny, sponsors started pulling partnerships. The league had no choice in the matter, they had to oust him, mostly because the views got heard.

 

[drdiags]

America tends to forgive folks when they are caught saying un-popular things. I rather have a racist or bigot out in the open. At least you know who you are dealing with. The NBA has some exclusive rules and as seen with the HBN attempt to buy the Kings, don't have to answer to normal business concepts because of their organizational standing.

I don't think the NBA should be able to take Sterling's team from him due to some Riley Cooper type private conversation. He is not alone in his beliefs and his line of thinking wasn't unknown to the NBA. Stern was aware. Sure, as a player on his team, I wouldn't feel too chipper working for someone I know can't stand to be around me. Sure, the NBA had to consider the impact of players boycotting the playoffs and costing them millions in endorsements and television revenue. That was the reason the NBA did what it did. They had to cover themselves. Not because of some noble idea, but rather to avert a potential fiscal damaging scenario due to this.

And the first thing I thought of when I caught wind of this story is try to figure out why the GF was recording this in the first place. Later details showed her motives. Some things need to stay behind closed doors. It isn't like his prior documented history didn't show he had issues with minorities so GF wasn't exposing some vital secret. She had her own agenda.

The owners got on-board to protect their image. They may rue the day, since there are several of them who have done some underhanded deeds themselves. Sterling will fight this, maybe he "loses" but with a nice profit on his initial investment and probably not much longer to live, he will be alright. He will be pissed he was forced to sell but other than losing the prestige of being an NBA owner not injured beyond repair.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

The issue of privacy is a red herring in this instance. The real issue is that you have someone making lots of money off of mostly-black labor who finally got 100% caught insulting the very labor that runs the league. Secondary is whether or not Mr. Sterling had an expectation of privacy; maybe if he had stayed at home with his wife instead of chasing around women that he was not able to trust as much and sharing his views on race, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[drdiags]

On the topic of Sterling not losing money with the sale of the Clippers, I guess he would be subject to capital gains taxes up to 33% of the sale that his family wouldn't have to deal with if they inherited the Clippers from him. This could be a drawn out situation.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

And yet, nobody seems at all curious why his wife/girlfriend decided to release this now. Surely it couldn't have been the first or only second time it happened. Why be okay with it until now? Why continue to see him if it is so morally reprehensible? Perhaps he was getting bored with his toy and she knew she'd never inherit anything so grab what you can before the door slams shut.

She set him up, got him talking, recorded it and then released it to the media so all the peasants could do their pitchfork and torch thing. And sure as day, it went entirely according to her plan.

What's most funny to me is that she shares his views but literally nobody is smart enough to realize they are being played like a chump. At least the media is doing it for money. The masses buy in because they are too angry and stupid to realize when they're being gamed.

We live in a world where privacy and discretion are dead. Where you can be fired or harassed for the most minor errors, simply to keep the peasants happy and the media paid. George Orwell would say he told you so.

Yeah, but once it got out, the NBA had no choice in the matter. They did what had to be done, no?

How so? Did they discipline him for doing anything illegal? Or did they just hand out a seven-figure fine and a lifetime ban for being an asshole? The guy's a racist douchebag, for sure. He's disgusting; a cross between Mr. Burns and Quagmire, but douchier. Except that nothing he did was remotely illegal. And while he did nothing illegal, the league, through pressure from what was essentially a lynch mob, handed out an incredibly stiff sentence to him for simply exercising his First Amendment rights, in private, with reasonable assurance it would stay private.

Not to make this too political, but there's a reason for the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, and it certainly ain't for protecting speech which is condoned by popular opinion. It's there to protect that which isn't popularly accepted. That which is accepted by the majority as kosher has no need of a Bill of Rights to protect it. This guy, douche or no, is simply the third or fourth in what appears to be a long line of people whose rights, although not violated by government, are most certainly curtailed by mob "justice".

That said, Oprah is said to be heading up a gang of folks wanting to buy the Clippers. With her, and Magic Johnson, and others, how many honestly think Chris Hansen has a snowball's chance in the pit of Hades at buying the team, even if he puts forth the effort?

 

[Throwdown]

I don't even think Hansen should try with the Clippers, just leave that situation be.

The Oprah thing would another super team like Seattle's group, just a bit more super. They're saying that the group is Larry Ellison (who has been pretty much shut out of the NBA at every chance he's had to buy a team, the league just keeps telling him no), David Geffen, and Oprah. Geffen and Ellison would run the day to day operations needed for owners, Oprah's just an investor.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... s-clippers

 

[SonicHawk]

I don't even think Hansen should try with the Clippers, just leave that situation be.

The Oprah thing would another super team like Seattle's group, just a bit more super. They're saying that the group is Larry Ellison (who has been pretty much shut out of the NBA at every chance he's had to buy a team, the league just keeps telling him no), David Geffen, and Oprah. Geffen and Ellison would run the day to day operations needed for owners, Oprah's just an investor.

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/stor ... s-clippers

Don't worry, he's not going to buy a team that will be worth less money when it comes to Seattle.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

HFSD1. Not quite sure why, but some Blacks and Jewish folks have had issues with one another. See the infamous Jessie Jackson description of New York. The world is one crazy ride. A lot of wasted energies.

I've heard there's no love lost between Hispanics and blacks as well. Yes my friend, a LOT of wasted energies.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Life has always been this way. People do socially unacceptable things and are ostracized for it. Welcome to human interaction. This is not an argument that it is "right," just that it is how we get along in society together.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this conversation. The government didn't throw Sterling in jail for what he said. However, the NBA has the right to react to Sterling's remarks in whatever way they'd like, we have the right to react to Sterling's remarks whatever way we'd like, the players have that right, etc.

If Mr. Sterling didn't want to risk this sort of social backlash, he at the very least should have been more careful about who he espoused these views to. Or he could try to change and not be a racist, but people really don't like to work too hard on that sort of change for themselves sometimes.

 

[drdiags]

HFSD1. Not quite sure why, but some Blacks and Jewish folks have had issues with one another. See the infamous Jessie Jackson description of New York. The world is one crazy ride. A lot of wasted energies.

I've heard there's no love lost between Hispanics and blacks as well. Yes my friend, a LOT of wasted energies.

As a quick aside, blacks and jews died in the struggle for civil rights together. There are highs in human behavior and there are lows. I hope I don't sink too often to the low side but depends on who the judges are.

 

[Milehighhawk]

Life has always been this way. People do socially unacceptable things and are ostracized for it. Welcome to human interaction. This is not an argument that it is "right," just that it is how we get along in society together.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this conversation. The government didn't throw Sterling in jail for what he said. However, the NBA has the right to react to Sterling's remarks in whatever way they'd like, we have the right to react to Sterling's remarks whatever way we'd like, the players have that right, etc.

If Mr. Sterling didn't want to risk this sort of social backlash, he at the very least should have been more careful about who he espoused these views to. Or he could try to change and not be a racist, but people really don't like to work too hard on that sort of change for themselves sometimes.

It is however about privacy and an increasing tendency for media and the larger society to care less and less about it. How would you feel about someone recording all your conversations just in case you say something juicy, rip it completely out of context, and then publish it to your parents, family and friends for the sole purpose of destroying your character? The less the media and people in general value privacy, the more the door will open until there is no longer a perception that it is even something that should be protected at all for the sake of "transparency" and "security".

You may not like this guy, I may not like this guy, but I should think most people care about something like that.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Life has always been this way. People do socially unacceptable things and are ostracized for it. Welcome to human interaction. This is not an argument that it is "right," just that it is how we get along in society together.

The Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this conversation. The government didn't throw Sterling in jail for what he said. However, the NBA has the right to react to Sterling's remarks in whatever way they'd like, we have the right to react to Sterling's remarks whatever way we'd like, the players have that right, etc.

If Mr. Sterling didn't want to risk this sort of social backlash, he at the very least should have been more careful about who he espoused these views to. Or he could try to change and not be a racist, but people really don't like to work too hard on that sort of change for themselves sometimes.

It is however about privacy and an increasing tendency for media and the larger society to care less and less about it. How would you feel about someone recording all your conversations just in case you say something juicy, rip it completely out of context, and then publish it to your parents, family and friends for the sole purpose of destroying your character? The less the media and people in general value privacy, the more the door will open until there is no longer a perception that it is even something that should be protected at all for the sake of "transparency" and "security".

You may not like this guy, I may not like this guy, but I should think most people care about something like that.

Again, this is a different discussion. However, people have ALWAYS been nosy as hell. This idea that privacy is something we USED to value, but now don't, is not an accurate one. Societies across time have been all about nosing into people's business in order to make sure that people are fitting into society properly. Since we're talking about race, look at something like anti-miscegenation laws, both written and unwritten, but enforced by a society that would cast out both members of a marriage like that. Where was a right to privacy then?

In any case, where the remarks came from didn't matter. If someone secretly recorded your employer saying disparaging things about you and your family, would you say, "Oh, well, someone violated his privacy!" or would you be more upset about what your employer said in the first place? If Mr. Sterling wanted to avoid pissing off his employees, who by the way are in a business where it is more obvious than most that the labor itself is the key reason the whole enterprise makes any money, he should have been more aware of who he was saying these things to.

And are you suggesting that Sterling's words were taken out of context? People always complain about the media "taking things out of context." This happens sometimes, but other times, it's just a throw-away phrase meant to show MEDIA BAD rather than a specific criticism, or at worst, it is something people say who were quoted in context, but who don't want to apologize and instead try to flip criticism back on the media.

 

[SonicHawk]

It is however about privacy and an increasing tendency for media and the larger society to care less and less about it. How would you feel about someone recording all your conversations just in case you say something juicy, rip it completely out of context, and then publish it to your parents, family and friends for the sole purpose of destroying your character? The less the media and people in general value privacy, the more the door will open until there is no longer a perception that it is even something that should be protected at all for the sake of "transparency" and "security".

You may not like this guy, I may not like this guy, but I should think most people care about something like that.

It wasn't out of context. The government has taken no action. There is no legal issue. Privacy is not an acceptable term for a public figure. We live in a public word, if you're a public figure things will come out. Everyone has phones that record HD video and audio. I prefer a world in which people actually think about what they do and say and see consequences (not by the government but by other humans) rather than a world that's hush hush.

I care that the government isn't impeding on his ability to privately hate black people. I do care that a private organization kicks him the f*@# out.

 

[Scottemojo]

After reading the actual NBA bylaws, I don't know if they actually have the cause required to put Sterling before the board of governors. Not that they won't try, but it look like the legal wording favors Sterling.

 

[Uncle Si]

It is however about privacy and an increasing tendency for media and the larger society to care less and less about it. How would you feel about someone recording all your conversations just in case you say something juicy, rip it completely out of context, and then publish it to your parents, family and friends for the sole purpose of destroying your character? The less the media and people in general value privacy, the more the door will open until there is no longer a perception that it is even something that should be protected at all for the sake of "transparency" and "security".

You may not like this guy, I may not like this guy, but I should think most people care about something like that.

It wasn't out of context. The government has taken no action. There is no legal issue. Privacy is not an acceptable term for a public figure. We live in a public word, if you're a public figure things will come out. Everyone has phones that record HD video and audio. I prefer a world in which people actually think about what they do and say and see consequences (not by the government but by other humans) rather than a world that's hush hush.

I care that the government isn't impeding on his ability to privately hate black people. I do care that a private organization kicks him the f*@# out.

Not to mention Sterling requested on his own volition to have his conversations recorded because he was having trouble remembering things and then trusted those recordings to his mistress (that always seems safe)

Basic line is this:

a. he was an a-hole and a racist.
2. he picked an disloyal gold digging tramp to record his conversations
c. she got back at him for whatever reason she chose because, well, she's an disloyal gold digging tramp
d. noone is coming to his defense because, shockingly, this surprises noone that knows him. That has to say a ton.

He did this to himself. While I understand the perception (and its a rationale one) that our entire sordid lives are seemingly open to display, in this case Sterling chose to say these things while knowing that his mistress/assistant was recording conversations (he may not have known she was recording that one). Apparently there are 11 hours (11 HOURS!) of recorded conversation.

 

[Milehighhawk]

It is however about privacy and an increasing tendency for media and the larger society to care less and less about it. How would you feel about someone recording all your conversations just in case you say something juicy, rip it completely out of context, and then publish it to your parents, family and friends for the sole purpose of destroying your character? The less the media and people in general value privacy, the more the door will open until there is no longer a perception that it is even something that should be protected at all for the sake of "transparency" and "security".

You may not like this guy, I may not like this guy, but I should think most people care about something like that.

It wasn't out of context. The government has taken no action. There is no legal issue. Privacy is not an acceptable term for a public figure. We live in a public word, if you're a public figure things will come out. Everyone has phones that record HD video and audio. I prefer a world in which people actually think about what they do and say and see consequences (not by the government but by other humans) rather than a world that's hush hush.

I care that the government isn't impeding on his ability to privately hate black people. I do care that a private organization kicks him the f*@# out.

1. Never implied what Sterling said was taken out of context.
2. Never implied the government took any action.
3. Never implied there was a legal issue.
4. Never defended his actions or character.

You are completely off-base in your assertion that a "public-figure" has no right or less of a right ("not an acceptable term") to privacy and dare you to find anything to back up that assertion.

We agree he is a dirt bag.

Please try to argue against what I wrote instead of what your imagination says I wrote, it makes conversations a little easier to follow.