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 ...
Morality is of zero consideration here. This story is 100% about money. The other billionaire owners will push Sterling overboard so their NBA franchise investments remain stable or increasing in value
Stipulating to both your assertions, I would still hope that Sterling, unattractive as he is -- hell, precisely because he is unsympathetic and unattractive -- would stand up and sue the living hell out of everyone in sight, just to make sure a court of competent equity jurisdiction gets to thrash it all out. And if necessary, I hope he appeals as far as he needs to, to get past the claque of Hive Mind judges who pretend to dispense justice on the Lefty Coast.
Everyone needs to see that a square deal is done, and not just another celebrity beat-down by the Trendy Racist Left. Let's see Sterling's denigrators come on out into the limelight for their own close inspection of motive.
My own hope is that a carnivorous plaintiff attorney with a flair for theater (and blood on the ceiling) will take Sterling's case to the moon and splatter a few of these brass-bound, smug liberal egomaniacs. How 'bout some of OJ's old counselors, like the obnoxious butt-tick Flom? He was said to be totally repugnant, and highly competent and effective. Let the circuses begin.
FReepers, who's making popcorn?
I too am hoping that this microscope is applied far and wide, and suitable "kicking out of the business" commences. The liberals are the most mean-spirited, bigoted racists, and have the most to lose on exposure.
Alas, it's a wasted hope. The rule, like all rules, will be selectively applied. I have little respect for the institutions of "justice." Well, I respect it like I do the Mafia, and for the same reason.
Not if Sterling's landshark has the wit to chum the waters and put on a first-rate melodramatic soap opera with pointing fingers and famous faces, drags in people from all over the glitter-sphere to testify under subpoena.
It could be an epic ego-undressing and skirt-spattering festival.
The worst that does to the offender is embarrass them. No way the rule against Sterling is going to be applied evenly. He's a sacrificial goat. Liberals get away with more blatant racisim, etc., with no negative consequence whatsoever. Even if exposed, they will not be penalized.
There are plenty of examples, public examples, right now. They've been cited in news reports - the ass who wears the 5% bauble to NBA games? That's blatant racism - no penalty.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the big show, but once it exposes the blatant hypocrisy, the press will move on.
Nancy Grace won’t cover the evidence against liberal, hispanic, or black bigots.
Yech.
Duh? I'm not up on the 5% thing .... is it a thing, a rock, a medallion? No comprendo ...
The Brooklyn-born rapper was sitting court-side at a Nets game on Tuesday with wife Beyonce when he was snapped wearing the controversial symbol.1) Silver should ban Jay-Z from NBA games, andOne of the core tenants of the Five Percent Nation - an off-shoot of the Nation of Islam - is that white people are 'wicked and inferior' to black men.
None of that will happen. Hypocrites. Always have been, it's just more obvious with the Sterling/Silver dustup.
I don't know if I'd land on Jay Z like that ..... civil rights, etc., it's the same as a Black Power tee or a Battleflag tee.
He wouldn't get invited to my next poker game, but then he wouldn't come anyway. Even if I were having one anytime soon.
Yep,baseball is a great sport.
Hockey is #2.
Go Bruins.
.
“Until very recently expressing an unpopular opinion like Sterling did WAS considered to fall under free speech. “
Please cite an example.
I can cite a relevant example that demonstrates the exact opposite of your assertion that happened in my business: the entertainment industry.
Communist party members were banned from working in motion pictures. And, contrary to popular opinion, the “government” or “Senator McCarthy” had nothing to do with this ban. Nobody lost their job at the behest of the US government.
The studio owners were the authors and enforcers of the blacklist. No first amendment issues, because private employers decided whom to hire or not hire. The free market in action. Would you suggest that studio bosses who fled the anti-semitism, hunger, and terror of turn-of-the-century Europe be forced to subsidize the advocacy of politics they despised with a paycheck?
NBA team owners are behaving exactly like those mid-20th century studio heads. People who promulgate the views this guy holds are bad for business. He’s a black eye on their industry. They don’t want to work with him. And no government strong-arm tactics should force them to.
The free market of ideas impacting the free market of the economy is what’s happening here. And it’s the way America is supposed to work.
““Until very recently expressing an unpopular opinion like Sterling did WAS considered to fall under free speech.” “
“Please cite an example.”
Throughout the last 60 years people with unpopular opinions like the Klan or the Nazis were allowed to march even though most people found their views reprehensible. No one tried to destroy the lives of clerks or judges who approved the permits or even the marchers themselves. The predominant attitude was that they had freedom of speech and had the right to use public facilities to express their opinions. The same is true of the antiwar hippie scum or black panthers, etc. No one sought to deny them their free speech or the right to speak on campuses. Contrast that with the current environment where people with majority opinions are banned from campus, threatened with violence or simply ostracized and ridiculed.
“Would you suggest that studio bosses who fled the anti-semitism, hunger, and terror of turn-of-the-century Europe be forced to subsidize the advocacy of politics they despised with a paycheck?”
Just like people are not able to discriminate hiring or renting apts on the basis of race, I would suggest not being able to discriminate hiring on the basis of political opinion. That means if a person does their job and does not publically express views counter to their job position, then it is no one’s business but their own. For example if I work for a fracking company I cant publically advocate banning fracking. However, if I want to send money to an anti-fracking group or march in a rally that would be protected (unless it can be shown that by that action the business was harmed).
“NBA team owners are behaving exactly like those mid-20th century studio heads. People who promulgate the views this guy holds are bad for business. He’s a black eye on their industry. They don’t want to work with him. And no government strong-arm tactics should force them to.”
IMO a person should not have their property or livelihood taken away based on an illegally recorded and released private conversation. I also think the “outrage” of the other owners is solely based on fear of the race hustler mob. In the case of the NBA the mob will impact business and profits so they may be justified in getting rid of Sterling, however I would like to see the leaker sued for any losses or fines he must pay and prosecution for an illegal wiretap, privacy invasion and malicious intent.
“The free market of ideas impacting the free market of the economy is what’s happening here. And it’s the way America is supposed to work.”
Here is where we really disagree. In most cases the business is not impacted by an employee or associate’s opinion and so should not be able to punish them without evidence that it caused harm. And I especially disagree with the proposition that its OK for Americans to be afraid to express their opinions and be forced into silence for the sake of political correctness, or to be persecuted by intolerant leftist mobs.
Fine article coming from CNN of all places. Not sure if I agree with all of its descriptions but the spirit of it is spot on.
“Throughout the last 60 years people with unpopular opinions like the Klan or the Nazis were allowed to march even though most people found their views reprehensible.”
False analogy. You’re conflating government suppression of ideas at gunpoint with private individuals who are absolutely free in a free market economy and free market of ideas to express their disagreement with the ideas Sterling holds, using their checkbooks and their mouths. They don’t want to work with a racist. Please cite in the Constitution where it says they’re not free to fire someone for being a racist.
“No one tried to destroy the lives of clerks or judges who approved the permits or even the marchers themselves.”
Really? No one harassed the Nazi marchers? They paid no price in the court of public opinion for their evil ideas? People welcome Nazis into the community and give them great jobs? Doubt it.
“The predominant attitude was that they had freedom of speech and had the right to use public facilities to express their opinions. The same is true of the antiwar hippie scum or black panthers, etc. No one sought to deny them their free speech or the right to speak on campuses.”
No government official empowered by the awesome might of the state is seeking to suppress Mr. Sterling’s free speech. He is free to espouse his views wherever he wishes. But he has butted up against his business partners who disagree with him and are voting him out. They don’t want to work with a racist. That’s their right.
“Contrast that with the current environment where people with majority opinions are banned from campus, threatened with violence or simply ostracized and ridiculed.”
You’ve made one point I will concede: banning speech on the campuses of public universities (private schools should be free to make their own rules) or the Federal government setting up “speech zones” is a huge intrusion on the First Amendment. None of this has anything to do with Sterling.
“That means if a person does their job and does not publically express views counter to their job position, then it is no one’s business but their own.”
The problem is Sterling’s views are public.
“For example if I work for a fracking company I cant publically advocate banning fracking. However, if I want to send money to an anti-fracking group or march in a rally that would be protected (unless it can be shown that by that action the business was harmed).”
I’m pretty sure marching in public is advocacy. And if I owned the fracking company, I would fire you for your ideas. You exercised your freedom of speech; now I’m exercising my right to do what I like with my private property. Which is not give it to you. Because I disagree with your ideas. There is nothing more American... or Constitutional.
“IMO a person should not have their property or livelihood taken away based on an illegally recorded and released private conversation.”
That is certainly true in a government court. But NBA owners are not a judicial body, and under no obligation to consider how or why his ideas were made public. They’re out there. He said it. He is a racist. They’re free to fire him.
” I also think the “outrage” of the other owners is solely based on fear of the race hustler mob. “
So what?
“In the case of the NBA the mob will impact business and profits so they may be justified in getting rid of Sterling”
Um, YEAH. This is my point. Why are we arguing?
“In most cases the business is not impacted by an employee or associate’s opinion and so should not be able to punish them without evidence that it caused harm.”
Why does there have to “evidence that it caused harm?” And who decides the evidence? The GOVERNMENT?! It’s my business, my property, and I can do whatever I like with my property. The moment someone comes along — with guns — to tell me what I can and can’t do with my property — because you don’t like my reasons — we’re on a dangerous path.
“And I especially disagree with the proposition that its OK for Americans to be afraid to express their opinions and be forced into silence for the sake of political correctness, or to be persecuted by intolerant leftist mobs.”
Once again, are you conflating government and private business? You should never be afraid to express your opinions for fear of government, but you absolutely need to think twice about what you say about abortion rights if you work at Planned Parenthood. Why is this such a hard concept? People who pay you money can police your speech. They can fire you if they don’t like what you say. There’s nothing sinister or un-American about it.
The government can’t put anyone in jail for being a racist, but God help us if they can put me in jail for firing you for being a racist. Or make me hire you against my will.
“False analogy. You’re conflating government suppression of ideas at gunpoint with private individuals who are absolutely free in a free market economy and free market of ideas to express their disagreement with the ideas Sterling holds, using their checkbooks and their mouths. They don’t want to work with a racist. Please cite in the Constitution where it says they’re not free to fire someone for being a racist.”
I am arguing for an expanded interpretation of the 1st amendment to protect freedom of speech from the crazed leftists determined to destroy the lives of those they disagree with. We are seeing that can have just as chilling an effect on freedom of speech as govt repression. Yes the govt can throw you in jail (and the left now proposes criminalizing speech they disagree with), but losing your job and property due to public pressure on your employer is also a form of repression designed to suppress opposition and freedom of expression. Govt repression and mob repression of freedom of speech has the same result. Private organizations are all too willing to roll over and punish and employee due to pressure from social media. This was not a problem in the past but the left now prowls public information like the gestapo looking for evidence of “hate” like campaign contributions or donations to “right wing” organizations. The effect is to suppress donations to such groups for fear of losing your job.
“Really? No one harassed the Nazi marchers? They paid no price in the court of public opinion for their evil ideas? People welcome Nazis into the community and give them great jobs? Doubt it.”
A counter demonstration is very different from the concerted effort to destroy people’s lives. People opposed the Nazi/Klan but acknowledged their right to their opinion. That has changed.
“The problem is Sterling’s views are public.”
Not by his own actions, but by illegal actions. If a man cannot express his opinions in his own home without them becoming public there is no privacy. Clearly Sterling did not expect that his views to become public.
“No government official empowered by the awesome might of the state is seeking to suppress Mr. Sterling’s free speech.”
Debatable but such proposals are currently being floated in the media regarding criminalizing speech. Also recent events have shown us that the govt is not the only group seeking to suppress speech from which we need protection.
“I’m pretty sure marching in public is advocacy. And if I owned the fracking company, I would fire you for your ideas. You exercised your freedom of speech; now I’m exercising my right to do what I like with my private property.”
Technically I agree with you however I am seeking to expand free speech protections which is why I added the need to show harm. IMO your employer should not be able to fire you because you solely because you disagree with him, just like he cannot refuse to hire you because of race. If my employer is a rabid OBozo supporter and finds out I voted Romney, by your definition that is grounds for dismissal. You can destroy my career simply because you found out I donated money to a candidate you dislike. An employer should only be able to fire you for performance issues, not for political disagreements. Freedom of speech is a fundamental constitutional right that should be protected from corporate douchebags in addition to govt ones.
“There is nothing more American... or Constitutional.” Than firing someone for their political beliefs? That has never been an American value.
“It’s my business, my property, and I can do whatever I like with my property. The moment someone comes along — with guns — to tell me what I can and can’t do with my property — because you don’t like my reasons — we’re on a dangerous path.”
Are you kidding? There are libraries full of govt regulations telling you what you must do with your property or business, from what type of people you hire, to what benefits and pay you give etc. We have been on a dangerous path a long time and its getting worse by the day.
“You should never be afraid to express your opinions for fear of government, but you absolutely need to think twice about what you say about abortion rights if you work at Planned Parenthood.”
To reiterate- I understand the current situation and that actions have consequences. I am arguing that things should change in favor of more protections due to the current threat to free speech and to political expression from rabid leftists pressuring private entities to destroy their opposition. A threat I see as potentially becoming as great as that from govt repression of this right.
“You can destroy my career simply because you found out I donated money to a candidate you dislike. An employer should only be able to fire you for performance issues, not for political disagreements. Freedom of speech is a fundamental constitutional right that should be protected from corporate douchebags in addition to govt ones.”
The right to hire and fire at will is a property right. And lots of people who carry a torch for free speech fail to grasp that without the sacrosanct right of property, there is no free speech. And speech rights, by the way, are a subset of property rights. Think about it.
It’s a business owner’s absolute right to hire — pay his own property — to whomever he may wish for any reason. Or not. He doesn’t have to employ you if you swear in front of his wife. He doesn’t have to employ you if you wear a purple shirt and he hates purple. He doesn’t have to employ you if he doesn’t like you, and he may not like you if you voted for Romney.
It is firmly established case law that giving money to a politician is free speech. It is just as firmly established that no one can be forced to donate to causes with which they disagree. The Obama-supporting employer doesn’t support your candidate, so no more money from him to your cause — that is protected speech and the free exercise of property rights.
“I am arguing that things should change in favor of more protections due to the current threat to free speech and to political expression from rabid leftists pressuring private entities to destroy their opposition.”
So you want the government to get involved, guys with guns and jails, policing speech between citizens. Is that really what you want? The cure is worse than the disease. When a regime like the one in charge now is in power, you think they’re going to help or hurt people who think like you?
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.