I would like to hear the board's opinion on the Sterling situation

Sterling did not just make a racial slur, he implied that black folks were dogs that he fead & made rich. He also said he does not want black folks at his games even though they make up over 80% of his team. He has a old slave owner mentality that shouldn't be accepted. Simply making a racial slurr is not what this is about

 

this may be a bit off topic but I was more concerned about the question the lady asked Silver....

Q. Is the NBA considering more African American ownership at this point?

ADAM SILVER: We’re always open to ownership from people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities. As you know we have an African American primary owner in the league right now. Shaquille O’Neal just became a small owner of the Sacramento Kings. David Robinson is an owner of the San Antonio Spurs. Vivek Ranadive, a person of color born in Mumbai, India, just became the primary owner of the Sacramento Kings. So I believe we have a very diverse league, but I’d always like to see it become more diverse.

....Why is that question even being asked? Is 20 black owners enough? Why just black owners? Why not hispanic/asian/middle eastern owners? As a person with a spanish background, I have never once concerned myself with the amount of ethnic owners in the NBA nor any league for that matter. Just a sad mentality if you ask me.

 

I'm black and i could care less. His views are his views and he shouldnt be forced to sell his business because of it.

Even though he will make almost a billion dollars

 

Brazilian mixed blood - Dani Alves

 

Also they don't have the same history with racial oppression as the U.S. (they had difficulties but not the same as the U.S. for as long a period of time and as recently.)

It just isn't the same at all.

 

So are all the Rockets players that made fun of the gay dude a few months back that made headlines gonna get suspended also and kicked out the league??

Is Shaq gonna get kicked out the league for making fun of a disabled person on instagram??

Kobe being homophobic??

How about all the black basketball players that call each other N*GGA on the court??


I do not condone racism but it was a recording between a man and his girlfriend, he was jealous and upset and said things he should have not said and was set up. We all say stuff behind closed doors in the heat of the moment.

I agree with Cuban being a very slippery slope.

 

I know Magic's opinion




It's a shame he didn't want people at games that are open to the public but wants the publics money to support his business.

Well now they don't want him at the games... He's getting to see what it feels like ironically.

 

All of this is more than covered in the other, original thread, as well as by Bomani Jones.

There is a difference between players and owners, just like there is a difference between a CEO and random employees. You can hold an owner or CEO to a higher standard. In fact, the NBA by laws actually do hold the owner to a high standard. There is no right to own an NBA team. It is a privileged and you enter into a contractual relationship with the NBA when you purchase one.

There is no slippery slope because the by laws expressly address the exact situation. Sterling's views, for whatever reason, damaged the brand and finances of the league. The other owners have the contractural right to not want to associate with the man any further.

He wasn't saying things in the heat of the moment. This isn't casual racism that it appears a lot of people want to excuse him for or are projecting onto him. This was his own recording. She was his archivist and HE records his private conversations. If anything, one could argue, that these were the ramblings of a senile old man, so why make a fuss? But it wasn't jealously. He told the woman she could have sex with whoever she wants. That doesn't bother him. She just shouldn't be seen publicly with blacks because that reflects poorly on him within his social circle. Sterling was actually very articulate, reasonable in his racism, and very honest about the situation.

Also, he has been long known to say vile and racist things and to back up his rhetoric with real economic action. That his hard core, textbook racism. Silver made his decision based strictly on the tapes. That is fair. The board of governors can consider dude's entire history, including his slum lording. And no doubt the court of public opinion, the market, has considered Sterling's background as part of the public outrage.

When sponsors drop teams due to gay slurs by players, then you will see the hammer dropped on players. For now, players tend to suffer the punishment of losing their specific sponsors and suffer specific punishments outlined in the CBA. I am sure that when a player is recorded going on for an hour in some racist/sexist/homophobic rant and then when people look closer find that player is involved in dirty business dealings, we won't see the usual slap on the wrist.

One could ask, well, why not force the Washington Redskins to change their name since racism is so bad? Why not for Snyder to sell the team if he won't change the name? Well, clearly because not enough people give a damn. The players aren't bothered enough to respond to it. Sponsors aren't bothered enough suspend sponsorships. There is no public uproar. Perhaps, Sterling should have been knocking Native Americans or gays instead, ?

The NBA has decided that it doesn't want either it's brand or businesses associated with this man. His freedom to be a racist in belief and practice doesn't trump the other owner's rights to not be associated with the man.

 

The first amendment isn't a philosophy or opinion; it is the written legal expression of a set of ideas. It is part of there constitution governing the relationship of between the government and its people. Just because you wasn't it to pally in other situations doesn't mean it will. It applies exactly as it was written.

 

100% wrong. The first amendment is very specifically defined. It's YOU that wants to change the first amendment and expand its definition.

Do you see any law made by Congress in play? Was Sterling committing a crime? Was the Press being stopped? Did Congress get involved? Is anyone preventing Sterling from assembling? Is he unable to petition the government to redress his grievances?

Where do you see that Sterling has the right to not be censured by his peers? That he can't be kicked out of a private club called the NBA Owners lounge? That he can't be raked across the coals by the public and the media?

It amazes me that people scream "1st amendment!" but want the 1st amendment to mean something that it clearly does NOT mean.

Keep screaming about the 1st amendment. What people who are screaming is NOT the 1st amendment, they want their OWN amendment.

And guess what... you can have one. Just get together 2/3 of the States to approve your version and ratify it with 3/4 of the States. See? You're covered. Now stop whining about the 1st amendment because what you're complaining about isn't the 1st amendment, you're whining that you don't like the current Constitution.

 

That's capitalism.

It was embarrassing for the NBA; even if it was only embarrassing because Sterling became a public figure. It may have been shocking (that this idiot tapped this stuff). And it 100% was about money. The league does not deny that. The league has said such and will continue to say such as the money argument will be key to voting Sterling out and fighting any legal action Sterling is likely to take to keep the team.

We know the league didn't give a damn enough to move on this dude sooner. His attitude and business ethics were a matter of public record. Sterling addressed this, too, stating that he cannot comment on past actions but just that when specific evidence was presented before him, he acted.

 

2 things:

1. I'm a stand-up comedian and I have been fired from places because the things I said on stage offended the wrong people. I don't understand how this is any different.
2. I'll be saying those things and others at the Hard Rock Houston all weekend.

 

No, the first amendment is an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is written law. It is very specific in what it applies to.

Read it:

Amendment I

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.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

It applies to Congress. It limits the ability of Congress to pass laws limiting the rights of people. It says nothing about what a private entity may do.

 

Why did you have to bring up his inappropriate deposition about the hooker in this thread? :grin:

 

Typos. I should be on my laptop typing this crap.

 

How do you know? Were you sitting at the table when the founders drafted the 1st amendment?

Did you ever think that there's a specific REASON that they only applied it to Government? They were worried about Government oppression, that's why it exists. If they were worried about expression leading to public censure, they would have said something, but they didn't.

Companies already censor your calls at work. They tape them, they monitor them. They also monitor your facebook and twitter. They also are legally entitled to examine messages and e-mails on company telephones.

Companies also have implied codes of behavior for senior personnel. They can terminate you for having an affair. They can terminate you for being overheard saying things that are detrimental to the organization. You get paid the big bucks, you are held to a higher standard. You don't want the higher standard, don't take the higher position.

I have no problem with it at all.

The first amendment is a guiding legal lens through which all constructed laws and rights are examined. It exists, and is used as a guidepost to determine whether laws are constitutional or not.

However, if someone is going to argue that their Sterling's rights are being infringed, then they either need to show existing law saying that those rights are being violated, or a constitutional reason that those rights are being violated.

Sterling's case does not pass either bar. In other words, the arguments are non-sensical and not supported by the existing laws of the land, or by the rights that are provided under the constitution.

They can scream what they want. The rest of us can also point out their ignorance and misconceptions.