Posted on 04/30/2014 3:10:10 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
(CNN) -- This past week, my inbox blew up with e-mails asking whether Donald Sterling's First Amendment rights were violated in the uproar over the Los Angeles Clippers owner's racist remarks about black people. After all, he was simply expressing his views, however unpopular.
While he did have some rights violated, his First Amendment rights remain intact.
The First Amendment protects you from the government punishing you because of your speech. The NBA is a private club, and it can discipline Sterling all it wants.
What about the chorus of criticism? Are we all violating his First Amendment rights by criticizing him? We are punishing him for his speech.
Nope. The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism. In fact, that's the First Amendment in action. That is how the marketplace of ideas works. We float our ideas in the marketplace, and we see which idea sells.
Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Randazza is full of crap when he attacks Cliven Bundy.
I fully agree with those who think racism is wrong, but expressing it in a private conversation should NOT lead to punishment.
The investigators likely did not look very far to see if he was goaded or led into making these statements, and it appears to me that the NBA was quick to pacify the angry mob of Al Sharpton followers and the players, who were RIGHTFULLY upset over the bigotry.
Yet being UPSET should not give you the power to demand someone’s head on a platter.
Ridiculous.
I won’t even bother going through the bigoted and racist statements made by LIBERALS that have been forgiven-—and not a single penalty was heaped upon them. Now, suddenly, this man loses a BUSINESS he LAWFULLY OWNS?
INsane.
As far as Sterling's morality, as far as this conversation goes, as if it was anyone else's business, if you read the transcript of the conversation, he says a whole lot of things, even "I love blacks."
This whole thing is stupid. The girl should be reprimanded for publicizing a private conversation. We all know that private conversations, especially between people intimate with each other, have nuances and meaning others may know nothing of. Too many, too quickly jumping on the anger-and-guilt-ridden, self-righteousness MSM kangaroo court band wagon.
True, but there is another “immoral” piece of the puzzle. The recording laws are in place to protect the corrupt. Politicians and other scoundrels have those laws to protect themselves.
The criteria are whatever the liberals decide the criteria are, at any given time.
As we saw in this rush to judgement, what was said privately vs. his public actions were of no consequence to the liberals.
Those two statements are not in conflict with each other.
I wonder if Sterling can sue Silver and the NBA for using the girfriend’s illegal actions as a basis for discipline.
It was wrong since the vast majority of the players are racist too.
No inconsistency? So the NBA can strip owners of their property rights by relying on illegally obtained evidence.
I'd like to see the agreement that Sterling accepted, that gave the NBA the right to exclude him from his own property. I understand the 2.5 million dollar fine, but that is supposedly the maximum agreed to by all parties.
OTOH, I am rather enjoying the difficulties this new standard creates for all the sports team owners and players. Like all the "laws" in this country, the NBA outrage is selectively applied.
Like Paula Dean, he is a life long Democrat, but expendable. Dean embarrassed the Moochelle, this man had a franchise that Obama’s “friend” magic Johnson (the other magic .... ) wants.
he was toast as soon as he opened his creepy old mouth.
Ahh, but wrong thoughts lead to wrong actions. The very fact he had a mistress, was a legendary bigot and was a willing tool used by the shakedown reverends to support liberal agendas indicate just a few of his immoral actions.
Sure they can.
In a criminal case, the prosecution cannot use evidence which was illegally seized by government agents, but it can use evidence illegally seized by private parties. In anything other than a criminal case (civil lawsuit, private arbitration, even a governmental proceeding like a license-revocation hearing), all illegally-obtained evidence is admissible.
Actually, he is a registered Republican, according to the L.A. County Registrar of Voters. He made some contributions to Democrats years ago.
Thoughts lead to words, words lead to actions, and so forth, that’s true. Even so, I fear we are becoming a society of thought police, in which case political correctness can just as well replace traditional morality with all its consequences.
The preening blather and self congragulation over Sterlings downfall is more disgusting than what he said
The calls to root out and bring down all real or imagined racists....and they mean white only
Is alarming
It is Hunter Diaries come real
William Pierce....pick up courtesy phone
Sterling won't be convicted of anything (not that Holder's not trying)...but he will certainly be shunned and excoriated by all, far and wide. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy! /sarc
It will be somewhat interesting to see how the rest of it plays out...I doubt he can be forced by the NBA to sell the Clippers? There will be lawsuits and foot-dragging at the very least over that!!
And I would like to see that equally repulsive "mistress" of his ("V." - only needs one name, I guess) taken to court over the illegal "wire-tapping" and publication without consent...at the very least!
My businesses are private too but let me try whites only or no queers
Privacy and association rights only extend to do gooders
In the time we have been discussing this non-story (opinion given in private; nobody was hurt), how many inner city blacks have been killed by other blacks?
But let’s not talk about that. That would be racist.
She is the whore? What does that make him?
Lots to be made public or resolved if this goes beyond the he said/she said arena.
Rochelle Sterling apparently was already going after V. Stiviano based
upon the following:
snip
Some key facts about V. Stiviano, the woman at the center of the Donald Sterling scandal
LEGAL TROUBLES
In March, Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, sued Stiviano, claiming she had received
more than $2.5 million in lavish gifts from the Clippers owner and they needed to be
returned. A big piece of the suit involves a duplex Stiviano purchased in December
for nearly $1.8 million with money that Rochelle Sterling claims Stiviano received
from her husband........
...... Stiviano has received a Ferrari, two Bentleys and a Range Rover from the Clippers’
owner, the lawsuit alleges. The vehicles are worth more than $500,000 according to the suit.
end snips
(d) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.I agree, that doesn't preclude the NBA from using illegally obtained evidence, plus, the witness's testimony is available even if the recording isn't. So, what about imposing a penalty in excess of the $2.5 million fine? I don't have a clue about the fine print of the owners/NBA contract, but I doubt owners would sign on to a contract giving the NBA the right to exclude them from their own property for life.
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.