Donald Sterling

[Andrew]

What are your thoughts on Donald Sterling and his remarks? Do you think he should be fined/suspended/not allowed to be a coach for his words?

Here's the video, which was released by TMZ, of what he said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhT6d5fMhzI

I personally think that he should be fined, suspended for a while, and maybe expelled from being an owner. If he apologizes for his remarks and shows he is not really a racist or something, then I think he has a chance at staying owner.

 

[Monorail]

Why should he be reprimanded for something he said? Discrimination in private life, although shallow, shouldn't really be a reprimanded offense.


"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

 

[aceastrofan]

I think that the Clippers definitely lost their free agent edge for next season. Nobody is going to want to play for him.

 

[Andrew]

Why should he be reprimanded for something he said? Discrimination in private life, although shallow, shouldn't really be a reprimanded offense.


"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

Because he has African American fans, players, staff, and even African Americans who live in places he owns.

 

[Whispered]

Because he has African American fans, players, staff, and even African Americans who live in places he owns.

Free speech.

 

[Thrill]

Free speech.

At a governmental level, that's a thing.

I'm sure there's contractual protection, but it's possible that the NBA can take some serious actions against him. And (again, assuming they haven't waived it in a contract), that's their right to do so.

 

[Whispered]

At a governmental level, that's a thing.

I'm sure there's contractual protection, but it's possible that the NBA can take some serious actions against him. And (again, assuming they haven't waived it in a contract), that's their right to do so.

I'm just saying why we shouldn't be mad at him. Not if/why they should/not sanction him

 

[Andrew]

He got banned for life from the NBA and has to pay a $2.5 million fine (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nba).

 

[allison]

Of course I don't agree with the things he said, however I can see him winning the case if he takes it to court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

Of course I don't agree with the things he said, however I can see him winning the case if he takes it to court.

He signed a contract when he bought the team.

If 3/4 of the owners choose to force a sale, then that's his own problem for signing a contract that allows this, and then saying something that would spark such a reaction from his fellow NBA owners.

 

[allison]

He signed a contract when he bought the team.



If 3/4 of the owners choose to force a sale, then that's his own problem for signing a contract that allows this, and then saying something that would spark such a reaction from his fellow NBA owners.

Where does it say in the contract that he is not allowed to state his beliefs???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

Where does it say in the contract that he is not allowed to state his beliefs???

When you sign a contract, you sell your entire soul to the person who handed it to you, except for the parts of your soul that the contract explicitly allows you to keep.

If the contract says, "A 3/4 owners' union vote will force a sale of your team," and you're uncomfortable with that term, then don't sign the contract. The contract doesn't say, "The NBA will defend your right to make racist comments." It doesn't even say, "We can only suspend you for racist comments." He can be booted for not enjoying Chipotle's burritos, if that's what the other owners want to do.

 

[Monorail]

When you sign a contract, you sell your entire soul to the person who handed it to you, except for the parts of your soul that the contract explicitly allows you to keep.

If the contract says, "A 3/4 owners' union vote will force a sale of your team," and you're uncomfortable with that term, then don't sign the contract. The contract doesn't say, "The NBA will defend your right to make racist comments." It doesn't even say, "We can only suspend you for racist comments." He can be booted for not enjoying Chipotle's burritos, if that's what the other owners want to do.

The only thing I don't quite agree with is the fact that this was not some public statement made by himself. He was very good about keeping his beliefs to himself. He was not putting the organization on the line by saying these things in a private setting.

I do, though, believe that the NBA can frankly do whatever they want because he is under contract, and the NBA has no obligation to provide him his job if he is not representing the franchise in an ideal manner, same as the Duck Dynasty guy.

 

[Thrill]

The only thing I don't quite agree with is the fact that this was not some public statement made by himself. He was very good about keeping his beliefs to himself. He was not putting the organization on the line by saying these things in a private setting.

I do, though, believe that the NBA can frankly do whatever they want because he is under contract, and the NBA has no obligation to provide him his job if he is not representing the franchise in an ideal manner, same as the Duck Dynasty guy.

This got me thinking -- where was this recorded? I double-checked, and in California, both parties must to consent to a recording. I'm not a lawyer, but it's possible that Sterling could take some civil action about those who recorded and released the tapes. He still can't do anything about the NBA's punishment (this isn't a criminal court; where they get their evidence is irrelevant).

 

[Monorail]

This got me thinking -- where was this recorded? I double-checked, and in California, both parties must to consent to a recording. I'm not a lawyer, but it's possible that Sterling could take some civil action about those who recorded and released the tapes. He still can't do anything about the NBA's punishment (this isn't a criminal court; where they get their evidence is irrelevant).

Well yeah, it was a phone conversation between him and his girlfriend. I really doubt it was his intention to get that put in the public space. In fact, I think it was out out by TMZ, but I could be wrong.

 

[allison]

I think a black lady blackmailed sterling to get him to say that .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thrill]

Well yeah, it was a phone conversation between him and his girlfriend. I really doubt it was his intention to get that put in the public space. In fact, I think it was out out by TMZ, but I could be wrong.

Confirmed: it was in California. The recorder (her name slips my mind) broke the law.

I think a black lady blackmailed sterling to get him to say that .

There is no basis for such an assumption.

There is evidence that he actually said what he believed. He was sued a few years ago for refusing black people from renting his apartments. He lost.

 

[Andrew]

I think a black lady blackmailed sterling to get him to say that .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one blackmailed him to say it. Besides, he wouldn't seriously risk his job if he was only going to say those things because someone is blackmailing him.

 

[Whispered]

This got me thinking -- where was this recorded? I double-checked, and in California, both parties must to consent to a recording. I'm not a lawyer, but it's possible that Sterling could take some civil action about those who recorded and released the tapes. He still can't do anything about the NBA's punishment (this isn't a criminal court; where they get their evidence is irrelevant).

That's generally the law in every state (unless it's a public place, with no presumption of privacy, and you're voluntarily there). He obviously has a very strong civil case. And his lawyers likely have already begun the process.

 

[kalyee]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't think people should be punished for their personal opinions - regardless of how offensive - unless they're actually hurting someone/something financially/physically. It's like with that Duck Dynasty fiasco. I don't agree with his beliefs, but he didn't physically harm anyone cause any problem beyond having a differing opinion, so why should he be chastised for that? Not everyone agrees with the majority, and while homophobia and racism aren't widely acceptable, they do exist, and I won't say anything negative against someone who keeps those negative opinions from harming others and lets them thrive only in their personal lives.