Posted on 05/04/2014 5:53:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Cliven Bundy should be happy for the public revelation of the private comments of fellow racist Donald Sterling; the latter has replaced the former as the person Americans most love to hate. These two bigots recently spewed racial hatred: Bundy suggesting that African-Americans might do well to consider slavery over freedom, and Sterling offering disjointed comments that reveal his evident beliefs in white supremacy.
Bundy is a Nevada rancher who became a hero to the right for standing up to the heavy hand of federal suppression of property rights in the West. He and his family had been grazing their cattle on land they believed was theirs or the state of Utah's for more than 100 years, when along came the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which claimed the land and assessed Bundy for his use of it. A federal judge upheld the claims and the million-dollar assessment; yet Bundy refused to pay. Instead of filing the judgment in a courthouse, as you and I would do if we had a judgment against Bundy, the feds showed up with 200 camouflage-clad machine gun-bearing federal agents determined to steal Bundy's cattle.
Soon, thousands of Nevadans showed up to support Bundy, whereupon the feds enacted a "free speech zone." They ordered the protesters either to remain silent, or to enter the zone and protest there. The zone was a 25-square-yard patch of earth in the Nevada desert, three miles from the Bundy/BLM confrontation site.
Sterling is a billionaire who owns the Los Angeles Clippers of the National Basketball Association (NBA) and was a hero to the left for his public support of liberal causes. He has given generously to the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP and to the Democratic Party in California. He is white, married and apparently enjoys the company of a biracial girlfriend. Recordings of his several wild, weird, disjointed rants directed to the girlfriend and uttered in the privacy of his own home have been played publicly. In them, Sterling directs his girlfriend not to attend Clipper games in the company of her African-American friends.
Both of these men used hateful and hurtful words that were animated by truly condemnable attitudes about race. No moral person credibly could suggest that slavery is preferable to freedom, and no moral person credibly could suggest that whites are superior to blacks in any respect. Those were attitudes advanced by antebellum slave owners and 20th-century supporters of laws that used the machinery of government to harm blacks during the 100 years following the Civil War.
All rational people, understanding the colorblindness of the natural law, have a moral obligation -- but not a legal one -- publicly to treat persons of different races with equal dignity and respect. I can morally prefer a friend or a mate who is of my race, but I cannot morally hate a potential friend or mate just because the person is not of my race. I do not know what is in their hearts, but Bundy and Sterling are apparently haters.
What to do with them because of their speech? Nothing. I mean nothing. Racially hateful speech is protected from government interference by the First Amendment, which largely was written to protect hateful speech. Neither Bundy nor Sterling has been accused in these instances of racially motivated conduct -- just speech animated by hatred.
In the Bundy case, the feds did suppress speech by keeping it three miles away from them. Free speech, assembly and the right to petition the government would become empty and meaningless if the governmental targets of the speech and assembly could not hear it. The First Amendment will condone outlawing the use of a bullhorn by protesters in front of a hospital at 3 o'clock in the morning. But it will not condone free speech zones for the sake of government convenience. The entire United States of America is a free speech zone.
In Sterling's case, is it fair to punish someone for speech uttered in the privacy of his home? It would be exquisitely unfair for the government to do so, but the NBA is not the government. When Sterling bought his basketball team, he agreed to accept punishment for conduct unbecoming a team owner or conduct detrimental to the sport. Is speech conduct? For constitutional purposes, it is not; the Constitution does not restrain the NBA. It is free to pull the trigger of punishment to which Sterling consented.
But it needn't do so.
Hateful and hurtful words have natural and probable consequences where the people are free to counter them. The government has no business cleansing the public marketplace of hateful ideas. The most effective equalizer for hatred is the free market. It will remedy Sterling's hatred far more effectively than the NBA can. As advertisers and sponsors and fans desert Sterling-owned properties, he will be forced to sell them, lest his financial losses become catastrophic. And it has removed Bundy from the public stage altogether.
But don't hold your breath waiting for the forces of freedom to nullify hatred. Soon the forces of darkness will attempt to do so as creative prosecutors and hungry litigators bring the government into the fray. I hope they stay home and follow the natural law principle of subsidiarity, which mandates that public problems be solved using the minimum force necessary, not the maximum force possible -- and no force at all where peaceful measures are just as effective.
I would not invite Bundy or Sterling into my home, nor would I befriend them. But I will defend with zeal and diligence their constitutional freedoms.
Should Shaquille Oneal be BANNED for life also for the racist rap video he made?? which incidentally he was FIRED by Sheriff Joe for.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/25/sports/sp-shaq25
Nobody reads actual SOURCES, anymore.
Do they.
Exactly
In short, Da Judge illustrates the fact that sooner or later, and one-by-one, all Fox hosts, contributors and analysts will come down with "O'Reillyitis", a chronic condition with symptoms of weasel words, fence-sitting, playing both sides against the middle, situation-ethics, moral equivalency, BS, CYA, arrogance, disregard of facts, high-sounding claptrap....with recurrent indications of latent elitist fascism.
Leni
I would not invite Bundy or Sterling into my home, nor would I befriend them. But I will defend with zeal and diligence their constitutional freedoms
That's probably because he hates Mormons and Jews.
Judge Nappi is a case in point - there was a reason the Founders didn’t let women vote.
Support of First Amendment restrictions is treasonous.
Pompous ass.
A faithless Octogenarian cancer patient and a barely lettered old cowboy. We gotta’ get a better class of racists.
True there are some females who should not vote, but then there are plenty of men who shouldn't either.
“Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote something with which I disagree. Therefore, women should not be allowed to vote.”
I understand the basic concept, which is that anything “bad,” including the existence of commentators with whom we disagree, is caused by “feminism.” However, I’m in the dark regarding the precise chain of reasoning for this particular example.
I don’t think too many people on this forum would be surprised to discover than many holier-than-thou libs would like anybody caught saying or doing what they deem racist words or actions punished. They sincerely believe only conservatives are haters and bigots. While their hero Obama pals around with a known racist, Al Sharpton, and the NBA has people like Spike Lee and Jay-Z attending games and getting involved with league-related functions. Hypocrisy at major-league levels.
Perhaps they were thinking of Janet Napolitano, not Andrew.
After reading this article, I think it is probably hard to tell the difference.
Is that what he said? or even suggested? I think he suggested that in some ways there were better off then being dependent on the government.
and no moral person credibly could suggest that whites are superior to blacks in any respect
This is emotive BS. Call it culture or call it race but the majority of blacks are unwed mothers, disproportionally criminal, disproportionally problematic etc. Superior? Inferior? Call it what you want but if given a choice I know I don't want to live like or be like the majority of blacks.
The Founders were quite aware that women have a strong tendency to vote for that which promises to help their children. As such, any scoundrel that promised them something seen as beneficial to their child rearing would get their vote.
They were correct.
Whether their assumption that male property owners would be more likely to judge their actions and those of others by the standard of the Constitution is really the issue.
Recent history suggests their fears were all too accurate.
Remove government from areas such as charity and Fedzilla’s bastard farming to create supportive voters goes away, perhaps the best option I can suggest.
Anyone got ideas on this subject?
The Founders were quite aware that women have a strong tendency to vote for that which promises to help their children.
Can you provide some specific quotes in support of this statement?
Are the NBA owners guilty of conspiring to deprive Sterling of his civil rights?
“Bundy suggesting that African-Americans might do well to consider slavery over freedom,...”
I thought this Napalitano guy was supposed to be smart.
You have to wonder if Napolitano even bothered to read Bundy’s words.
IF he did, he’s a liar.
If he didn’t, he’s playing to the crowd.
Never thought I’d see this out of Judge Napolitano.
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.