Posted on 04/29/2014 6:30:10 AM PDT by Kaslin
A private recording of racist remarks by the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, Donald Sterling, in a telephone conversation was released last week. Among other comments, Sterling said to his former mistress, a black Mexican woman known as V. Stiviano:
"It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to? ... You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games. I'm just saying, in your lousy f---ing Instagrams, you don't have to have yourself with, walking with black people. ... Don't put him [Magic] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games."
That these comments are racist and therefore contemptible goes without saying. But the incident raises other issues that are not as clear as the racism in Sterling's comments, yet they are at least as important.
One is the increasing release -- and acceptability -- of private recordings and videos. Take the video released last month of a married congressman engaged in a passionate kiss with a married member of his staff. This was a security surveillance video. Isn't the only reason for the very existence of surveillance cameras to catch criminals? Why didn't the release of such a video shock the media and the country?
I have consistently defended these ubiquitous video cameras against those who argue that they violate our privacy. I am convinced that they are indispensable to apprehending violent criminals, as they were in the case of the Boston Marathon terrorists. But, I have repeatedly added, if these cameras are ever used for personal or political reasons to ruin people's lives or careers, the perpetrators of the release must be punished severely, including prison terms. And if this abuse becomes widespread, the cameras must be taken down.
The fact that whoever released the surveillance video of the congressman has not been apprehended is a threat to us all. Yet this aspect of the incident has not even been discussed. All we heard was gloating over catching a conservative congressman in an act of infidelity.
Similarly, recordings of private speech must also remain private unless they pose a danger to others. When the media report private conversations that pose no threat of violence, they encourage more and more people to record and release private conversations. That, far more than the NSA trolling of billions of phone calls in order to identify terrorists, poses a real threat to privacy. Where are the civil liberties groups and libertarians on this issue?
Now, the second issue: How important to the public are the private remarks of public individuals? On July 18, 2000, I wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled: "Hillary Isn't an Anti-Semite."
It was a response to a book titled "State of a Union" by Jerry Oppenheimer, in which the author claimed that Clinton had called the Jewish manager of husband Bill's failed 1974 Congressional campaign, a "Jew bastard."
"I wish to defend Hillary Clinton," I wrote, "against the charge of anti-Semitism. I do so as a practicing Jew and a Republican. ... We must cease this moral idiocy of judging and labeling people by stray private comments. As David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman revealed, one of the most courageous friends American Jews and blacks ever had in the White House frequently used 'kike' and 'nigger' in private. He even wrote them down: In a letter home from New York, Mr. Truman described the city as 'kiketown.' Was this unfortunate? Yes. Important? No. Defining of the man? Absolutely not.
"I am repulsed by the loose talk about Mrs. Clinton's long-ago utterance. If that renders her an anti-Semite, then virtually every Gentile is anti-Semitic and almost every Jew is an anti-Gentile bigot.
"It is highly misleading to probe private comments for evidence of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry and sexism. The present trend emanates largely from a lethal combination -- the totalitarian temptation inherent in contemporary liberalism and the media's sensationalism."
It may well matter to God what people say in private. But what should matter to us is what people say in public and how people act -- whether in private or public.
Now, as it happens, Sterling does seem to have behaved in a racist manner in the past. And these actions do matter in assessing Donald Sterling. It is worth noting, however, that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People apparently felt that all the previous charges of racist conduct meant nothing. It was scheduled to award Sterling a lifetime achievement award at its upcoming Los Angeles gala in two weeks.
Yes, the private remarks attributed to Sterling are racist and awful. But the growing acceptance of leaks of people's private non-criminal behaviors and comments -- and the consequent judgment of these people -- will ultimately injure society far more than who owns the Los Angeles Clippers.
In my wasted youth, I worked in a busy kitchen in a nice, cooperate owned restaurant. I was blessed to be a part of a very intelligent, funny,sarcastic crew.
our conversations ran the gamut of all subjects. (politics, local and world affairs, trivia, comedy etc.)
One day it was suggested that we do an online audio blog and show the world how entertaining we were.
We immediately shot that idea down, stating that if corporate really knew how we really felt, we would all be in the cheese line.
Color matters these days it’s an obsession.
The left have waged war on their most evil people in the world rich white people the older the better.
Anytime, my friend.
I appreciate the support.
“his former mistress, a black Mexican woman known as V. Stiviano”
Somebody found the source of his problem - no taste as well as no discretion.
I suppose they can do whatever they want.....but I am leery of those who take action merely because of what someone says.
This is getting off-track a bit.
The First amendment protects speech relative to the government prosecuting you(with limitations that the courts accept like with Snowden, a separate issue) , but not keeping your private sector job.
As an employer you can fire your employees for voicing opinions that you disagree with. You can fire them for voicing that he agrees with Obama. That is not seen as their 1st amendment right,
I understand that. But it also applies to your opinions as well.
Of course there are consequences to it. And it does apply, because there are people screaming “he should be CHARGED” for it, criminally.
Having an opinion is NOT a crime, even if it’s offensive.
The left has been hiding under that for years.
I haven't heard anything like that.
Where have you heard or read that? (and what crime?)
You did trigger a brainstorm with that though.
Doesn't this appear to say that the bimbo who recorded him committed a crime?
“California's wiretapping law is a “two-party consent” law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to “confidential communications” — i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989). “
California Recording Law
If so then why am I the first to think of it?
“...I haven’t heard anything like that. Where have you heard or read that? (and what crime?)”
Saw some blurb on Bloomberg news (that’s a joke, right there), the talking heads were breathlessly going off about it, and they did the obligatory “SOME say he should be charged for “hate speech”, “hate crime”, etc.
It’s disgusting.
And yes, she did break the law by illegally recording him without his consent. That has been defined as “wiretapping” although technically, it’s NOT wiretapping
“...If so then why am I the first to think of it?...”
You’re not (sorry bro!!! :^)
well her life as a high priced hooker are over- who will risk her doing that to them
Really, the guy’s a typical liberal elite. Elites look down on blacks, Hispanics, conservatives, traditional Christians and Jews... etc. They’re not nice people...
Yes, I am the same way - Cuban is a big ego, but man when he said that I thought “Wow, how come our politicians cannot get this?” He just went up a knotch in my book...Meanwhile, the press doesn’t do any questioning of John F’ng Kerry’s remarks against ISRAEL on the eve of HOLOCAUST DAY! What a COMMUNIST...I hope God really deals with his whole “let’s push Israel to commit suicide” attitude!
“...the guys a typical liberal elite. ...”
Brother, I fully get that. He’s a turd, and not even a polished one at that.
All I’m saying is that the little bimbo is the criminal here; she did something patently and clearly illegal, but the focus is on him for his stupid comments.
But - he’ll skate, as soon as he opens his checkbook for his party handlers.
I thought it was Rednecks who did that,
‘You got a pretty mouth boy, WOOO_DOGGY” ,
I saw them in Roots.
I’m LOVING this smack-down that Enterprise posted:
http://www.hellomagazine.com/news/201107205797/wendi-deng-rupert-murdoch-attack/
Man, she FLEW up and DECKED that guy!!!
The guy in front, his reaction is like: “WHOA-WHOA-WHOA - INCOMING!!!!!!” and then Mudoch’s wife is just suddenly THERE, with the open-palmed thwack! on the Bearer Of The Pie’s face!!!!
Good job, Wen-Di! NOBODY messes with HER honey-pot sugar daddy!
Thanks for posting it Enterprise. I needed that laugh!
She love him, long time.
Whoopsey raccccist joke, see you when I get out of prison.
“...see you when I get out ...”
IF you get out!
"The personal life is dead in America. History has killed it. The private life is dead - for a man with any manhood."
And so ...down the slippery slope we go from public humiliation into the taking of property by the thought police.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.