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.[1]
Key word being CONGRESS
A PRIVATE organization like the NBA is fully within its rights to sanction a fellow franchise owner
The Right of Free Association is also enshrined in the Constitution.
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.
It doesn't mention the NBA. It doesn't say you can say anything you like without other people reacting to it. It certainly doesn't confer the right to own a basketball team. It only says *Congress* shall not infringe your rights to speech/religion/assembly etc. What has Congress done to Don Sterling?
In all his bull sessions at the University of Iowa did nobody tell Dr. Fisher that the 1st Amendment is there to protect our speech from government censorship and that the NBA is not the governmnet? They can sanction whatever owner or player they want for anything that owner or player does or says.
the constitution limits the power of the State; the NBA is a private organization. the NBA is thus not constrained by the US Constitution. furthermore, sterling voluntarily agreed to be bound by the NBA Constitution; no one forced him to. finally, while sterling has a right to his noxious, racist views, he does not have a “right” to own an NBA franchise; that is a privilege
finally, it is not clear that sterling was unaware he was being recorded. apparently his mistress was employed as his “archivist” and sterling knew she was recording him, according to some reports.
I hope Sterling sues the NBA. At least one theory being the NBA is seeking an out of proportion penalty when weighed against the nature of the man’s wrong.
I hope Sterling sues the NBA. At least one theory being the NBA is seeking an out of proportion penalty when weighed against the nature of the man’s wrong.
Since the US Constitution apparently says I have to buy health insurance under threat of penalty, I suppose the NBA one can force the sale of a team.
To say nothing of depriving a man of his lawfully owned property and his right to enjoy his property.
This is bad, really bad.
Not one more dime to anything that has anything to do with the NAACP.
Not one dime of my money to anyone or any company that supports Jessee Jackson in any way.
All of this is nothing more than opportunistic greed by the bottom feeders.
It will not stop until we take the money out of it.
It depends on the Bylaws, and contracts etc. that Sterling agreed to when he initially bought the team and joined the NBA, and any modifications since then.
If anything in these pertained to speech/behavior, then yes they can. Anyone can sign away their rights by agreeing to do so in a contract. So it depends on what he agreed to.
Did Rex ever pay Dr. Fisher for the coffees?
“That said what is disturbing to me is the invasion of privacy...”
The less one has an open mistress lizard person named V at 80 years old, the less likely one is going to be disturbed in this manner.
What would happen to a fast food franchise owner who was recorded telling his open mistress lizard person named V that he didn’t want her to be seen eating 80% of the food they sell?
Freegards
No one is more horrified at the totalitarian, Orwellian nightmare our society is becoming, or the hypocrisy that deified poor Blacks and demonizes poor whites, but what does the US Constitution have to do with what private individuals and organizations do?
The Constitution consists of the rules of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights are a list of restrictions on the federal government (though nowadays stretched to include every town hall and high school football game). What the NBA, a private organization, chooses to do, however terrifying the implications, has nothing to do with the Constitution. If it did, then liberals could invoke the Constitution against (for example) Catholic schools firing teachers who taught against church doctrine.
This needs a cultural blow-back of major proportions, but I wish both Left and Right would stop invoking the Constitution every time private organizations do something they find horrifying.