Posted on 04/30/2014 9:03:35 AM PDT by Moseley
On April 29, the Nazi Basketball Association (NBA) managed to become even more offensive than Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. This is quite an achievement. The fascist outlawing of private “thought crimes” by the NBA is the only thing that could be more offensive than the racist comments made by Sterling. Sterling is so racist that he is a Jewish man very conspicuously shacking up with a half-Black, half-Mexican girlfriend. (Huh?)
At this very moment, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is silencing dissent. The Russian Duma has just passed Putin’s law regulating bloggers on the internet. Journalists, activists, and critics in Russia have been jailed, ostracized, persecuted, and pushed into bankruptcy. Social media is now illegal in Russia unless the servers are physically operated inside Russia under Putin’s control.
On April 29, a consensus of self-righteous, chest-thumping censorship was widely heard, including even from Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly. We are now living in George Orwell’s book 1984 in place of the late, great U.S.A.
The NBA’s actions were condemned by Larry Elder, African-American radio talk show host: The worst thing [Sterling] said was ‘Don’t bring your black friends to the games.’ “The black friends can go, just don’t have em sit next to you. If Magic wants to go, just don’t have him sit next to you’ … for that, he loses his team?”
The NBA did not merely distance itself from controversial comments, such as by demanding a very public apology, but banned Sterling for life, fined him $2.5 million, and began steps to force Sterling to sell his ownership of the basketball team. One should remember that the offensive comments were made in private and released only for the purpose of engineering the controversy at hand.
(Excerpt) Read more at aun-tv.com ...
Did Hillary’s...”F’n Jew” offend him?
By your argument, if he engaged in kinky sex and someone taped it without his knowledge and broadcast it and it embarrassed the team and the NBA, he would be responsible, too.
It just doesn’t hold. He was a victim of a crime, used specifically to shame him and the NBA completely outside of any defense or contextual explanation, in the court of public opinion. And that situation, that criminally victimized him, is being invoked against him to support a contact provision. Sorry, it won’t hold. His lawyers are going to sure the crap out of the NBA for exactly what they are trying to sanction him for - the effects of the bad PR he is receiving at their hands without due process or defense or criminal actions being taken into account.
And he will win.
Big deal, Sterling doesn’t like blacks, just like millions of blacks don’t like whites and millions of quiet white Americans want nothing to do with blacks. How many whites move into black neighborhoods, how many whites can walk in black areas without getting raped or robbed by black thugs. Ever notice how often white women are murdered by black acquaintances? Ever notice how white males are depicted in tv advertisements? Usually the white guys is a boob while the black is the smart intellectual.
Welfare, thanks to the RATS has taken its toll on the black culture and race relations in this country are at disaster levels.
IMHO wayyyyy tooo much is being made of this. Let me say why.
First Both Sterling and HIs Mistress/Whore are BOTH wretched (sorts) human beings.
Sterling has a history of paying for sex. He rents whores IOW and call them GF’s, of course he has been married for 50 years.
The GFIS a pro she apparently has had a number of rich ‘boyfriends’ who shower her with gifts. Sterling bought her Bentley and Ferrari a condo and so on.
The wife was suing her. Now the interesting part Magic Johnson (who was in the instagram that offended Sterling so, is now in line to buy the team that Sterling will be giving up ...
Sterling has been sued by other whores he has been bedding and his testimony in those cases reveals what a dirtbag the guy is.
Everybody who knew this moron knew what he is.
As to his business partners getting rid of him. Well he is in the Entertainment business with the other owners. They have a brand to protect. Sterling has damaged the brand. This could cost them $$$$. They don’t want to lose $$$ so they get rid of the partner who was exposed. They have an obligation to protect their bread. The Black community is an important part of their audience, and the talent they employ.
Nothing personal, just business.
Just like the NAACP took his money from his Foundation and were going to give him an award. UNtil this recording was thrown in their collective faces.
No tears for Sterling. BTW how stupid was he to be fooled by the bimbo? BTW her and the lawyer are being public in stating she didn’t release the recordings.
This was a business decision and he is a dirty old man. Glad he is being voted out by his partners and hopefully she will be prosecuted for breaking the law.
IMO everyone involved deserve each others.
Now I need to take a shower for even thinking about this.
Don’t confuse them with the facts.
He would be, and he wouldn’t be the first one to get in trouble for a sex tape. When you live a life in public you are responsible for your own press.
Sorry it does hold, your very example HAS happened. Pam Anderson lost gigs because of her sex tape that was stolen from her safe. Bad press is bad press.
The fact that you can say it was used to shame the NBA is exactly why my argument is right. HIS actions were used against the NBA, the commissioner’s primary job is to protect the NBA, he must be punished to protect the league.
No he won’t win. The best he can hope for is the fact that he’s 81 means he can probably drag it out in court long enough to die. He owns a FRANCHISE, franchise owning comes with rules, and part of those rules ALWAYS includes revocation of your franchise rights.
As opposed to owning a KFC or Dunkin' Donuts franchise, I think the NBA as a business entity, anti-trust laws etc. certainly can come into the equation of how the Courts rule. I'd say there is a good chance that even if the owners vote him down which they probably will do, he'll have a fighting chance.
This story out of Oakland, gee.
I’m not arguing about the existence of the contact provisions. I’m arguing that they can’t be invoked as a result of the criminal disclosure of an entirely private act.
While supposedly private, Pam Anderson voluntarily participated in a sex tape. This was a private phone call made with every expectation of privacy. There is a huge procedural difference. And the NBA also aggravated the harm shading itself by not acknowledging these issues at least add much as it acknowledged the content of the tape. These differences count, and will not be overlooked by his lawyers.
Anyway, my opinion. We’ll find out though, because this obviously isn’t over.
No, he’s toast. He’s signed onto an agreement which includes the ability, by 3/4 vote, of him being forced to sell. Next owner’s meeting they’ll have a vote, and he’ll lose.
But they CAN be invoked, because the legality of what lead to the stories has no impact on the EXISTENCE of the stories. He brought bad press, period. That’s all that matters, his actions were used to damage the shield, the shield HAD to respond.
Remember Pam’s tape was in her safe, there’s every expectation of privacy there too. It was taken, it was released, and places that didn’t want a star THAT smutty used their opt out clauses and got rid of her.
There’s no procedural difference. He generated bad press, the league punished him for it. It’s important also to understand the layers of this punishment. Silver fined him the maximum allowable in the by-laws, there’s no way the courts will overturn that. Silver banned him from games, he’s by no means the first person banned from attending NBA games, first owner yes but not first person, so again no way that gets overturned. He has urged the owners to kick him out as a franchise holder, that’s merely a request, again allowable. If the owners decide to do that their bylaws say it takes a 3/4 vote and their reasoning doesn’t matter, if the motion carries there’s no way that gets overturned.
He might sue, but any suit that comes to conclusion he’ll lose. It really is over, the only question is will he admit it.
NBA law is not the only law.
It’s the only one that matters for this. He’s signed agreements to be governed by these rules and everything that has and will happened to him in this case follows those rules.
He could sue the NBA for devaluing his personal property. NBA laws aren’t the only ones in play here.
They didn’t devalue his personal property, he did by drawing bad press. In fact they could sue him for devaluing NBA property, which is exactly why has some form of personal conduct policy that allows them to punish people that bring bad press.
Maybe Buddy but I don’t think anyone thinks Sterling will get a fair vote from the NBA owners, they themselves will not go against being politically correct. If the courts looked at that and saw it as a kind of duress they were voting on, this case could go all kinds of directions.
Not being a lawyer myself, you still might have breach of contract rules at stake.
Sterling has announced at one point, the Clippers will NOT be for sale. I only saw the headline.
It’s my understanding that Sterling had his conversations recorded because he was having memory problems and also wanted his words recorded for his memoirs.
I hears somewhere that this may be true, but I have not heard that from him or anyone with personal knowledge. I would treat that suggestion with suspicion. If he is recording all his communications, he would have to notify everyone that he talks to to get their consent, or he would be in violation of the law. It would be crazy for him to record himself and then utter these things, but who knows? He's 81.
If that is the case, then it presents an interesting ambiguity. I can record a private conversation with my wife (don't have a mistress) so I can remember what I said. That doesn't mean I chose to make the conversation public. The intent of these statutes would be to make revealing such a conversation illegal and inadmissible. However, I did not see anything in the statutes that specifically says that using a recording made knowingly but which is intended to be private is illegal, or that such a recording is inadmissible. I did not search other statutes or the case law, however. There may well be other statutes that make stolen documentation inadmissible. Stay tuned for further updates.
What’s fair? They’re business people, the vote will be based on serving the image and profitability of the league and their franchises. Their job isn’t to hold a trial and weigh evidence, their job is to protect the shield.
He did breach a contract rule, he conducted himself in a way detrimental to the league. That’s life as a franchise holder rather than an independent owner, it means there’s other people out there concerned with the health of the entire system not just your corner and they have the ability to revoke your hold.
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.