What's new
By:

Looking for genuine discourse re: Donald Sterling/NBA

Darkwing Duck said:
How was Sterling's freedom of speech violated? In what way has the United States Government restricted the right of Donald Sterling to speak his mind in this case?
Click to expand...

restricted.
he lost 2.5 million dollar(ok not muchm money for him) and basically is forced to sell.

so yes he got restricted
 
Darkwing Duck said:
How was Sterling's freedom of speech violated? In what way has the United States Government restricted the right of Donald Sterling to speak his mind in this case?
Click to expand...

The purpose of government is to protect our rights when others attempt to take them away. This will make a very interesting court case if it comes to that.
 
Surely said:
I'm a little late to the party, and haven't read most of the thread, but here's my 2 scents: The government just needs to put microphones in every room that exists. Then they can monitor people's speech and we can punish those who have different opinions. Perhaps we could even institute the death penalty for people who dare speak their mind (I've heard that works pretty well in North Korea).

Sarcasm aside, I think the guy is an idiot for saying what he said, but it really bothers me that people are cheering for the loss of freedom of speech in this country.
Click to expand...

This has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. When you sign a contract with a private organization, your speech absolutely has consequence. Now if it was the police, or the federal gov punishing him, that is a completely different story. When you are involved with an organization that you disagree with fundamentally, you have two choices, you can either be separated from the organization, or you can shut the hell up. Free speech has never been without consequence.
 
DutchJazzer said:
restricted.
he lost 2.5 million dollar(ok not muchm money for him) and basically is forced to sell.

so yes he got restricted
Click to expand...

I was completely misunderstanding you, dutchbro. Completely. It's not that you want freedom of speech, it's that you want freedom from consequence. You want to be able to say whatever is on your mind without any recourse.

For instance. I own stock in Dutch Widgets. Dutchbro is the CEO. Dutchbro the CEO decides that he has an issue with the Jews and thinks that the holocaust is not that big of a deal. Unfortunately, the Jews are the biggest buyer of our widgets. As a shareholder of the company, you don't want me to have any recourse. You don't want me, the board of directors and the other shareholders to have the ability of removing you from the CEO position over your opinion.

So, you want it to be legal to run into a crowded theatre and yell, "Fire!" Right? You want to be able to do that even though there's a risk of people getting hurt as a result of being trampled. Is this correct, Dutchbro?
 
franklin said:
The purpose of government is to protect our rights when others attempt to take them away. This will make a very interesting court case if it comes to that.
Click to expand...

The problem of the matter is that not a single person has a right to own an nba team. And he signed a contract when he bought the team that has stipulations on him acting a certain way, in effect giving up his freedom to be racist.

It really comes down to what our rights are. Sure, we have rights to own personal property, and to free speech, and to many other things, but none of our constitutional rights are such that we have the right to never have our personal sports team taken away by that sports governing body.
 
The NBA (and the owners) are setting themselves up for a big legal battle over the issue of making Sterling sell the Clippers.

https://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/n...ba-adam-silver-clippers-lawsuit-lifetime-ban/

This article points out that, aside from Donald Sterling being Donald Sterling in terms of being involved in litigation, Sterling has a huge motivator in not wanting to sell the team in the capital gains tax. It also mentions some points that the owners would want to discuss very thoroughly before trying to make Sterling sell the team.

At the end of the day, my thought is that hitting Sterling with the lifetime ban and maximum fine are sufficient. Would the NBA be better off without Sterling as an owner? Yes. However, having and vocalizing views that offend people, including a majority of the NBA players, isn't enough to try to make Sterling sell the team imo.
 
b_line said:
This has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. When you sign a contract with a private organization, your speech absolutely has consequence. Now if it was the police, or the federal gov punishing him, that is a completely different story. When you are involved with an organization that you disagree with fundamentally, you have two choices, you can either be separated from the organization, or you can shut the hell up. Free speech has never been without consequence.
Click to expand...

ok so a serious question the first amendment only protects you from government prosecution?
because lot of people seem to thnink. tha first amendent only guarantees no gevernment punishment.
pirvate corporations can take it away?
 
b_line said:
This has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech. When you sign a contract with a private organization, your speech absolutely has consequence. Now if it was the police, or the federal gov punishing him, that is a completely different story. When you are involved with an organization that you disagree with fundamentally, you have two choices, you can either be separated from the organization, or you can shut the hell up. Free speech has never been without consequence.
Click to expand...

I guess I would rather see the free market punish the guy (by players agreeing to not play for his team, by fans not supporting his team or his other business interests) than the gestapo sweep in and lay the hammer down. There are societies currently and in history where people are/were unable to voice their opinion. Do you really want to become like them? And since when did America become a land where people were unable to have an opinion? Even a wrong one? (Disclaimer, I am not agreeing with what he said.)
 
nightmare3983 said:
The NBA (and the owners) are setting themselves up for a big legal battle over the issue of making Sterling sell the Clippers.
Click to expand...

I'm sure. I completely support Sterling's right to take this to court. He should be able to have legal recourse.
 
VINYLONE said:
I was completely misunderstanding you, dutchbro. Completely. It's not that you want freedom of speech, it's that you want freedom from consequence. You want to be able to say whatever is on your mind without any recourse.
Click to expand...

i dont want freedom form consequences.
i also want privacy.

with the ever changing world. when it comes to electronics the world has gone out of wack.
there will be no privacy
for example google glass.

it wont be long before you cant say anything for fear from being "prosecuted" in the court of public opinion.


seriously bro i am worried. cus i have gay friends and acquaintances. but i seriously have my strong opinion against gay marriage WILL always have that. it WILL not chance.

so now i cant express those opinions/concers in the privacy of my own home because there might be super harsh conesquences.

look i get that if i go to a hells angels rally and say certain things there will be consequences.


but bro seriously saying something in you home and getting these harsh consequences.


it is sad to see the same people celebrate a right taken away a right their forfathers have fought and died for
 
Surely said:
I guess I would rather see the free market punish the guy (by players agreeing to not play for his team, by fans not supporting his team or his other business interests) than the gestapo sweep in and lay the hammer down. There are societies currently and in history where people are/were unable to voice their opinion. Do you really want to become like them? And since when did America become a land where people were unable to have an opinion? Even a wrong one? (Disclaimer, I am not agreeing with what he said.)
Click to expand...

You're missing the forest for the trees.

The free market IS punishing him. He signed a contract/ charter which has bylaws/ stipulations (I might have the terms wrong) and he must abide by them. He still has his opinion and he still has the ability to say whatever he wants. He could start his own youtube channel and have the "David Duke Hour."
 
franklin said:
The purpose of government is to protect our rights when others attempt to take them away. This will make a very interesting court case if it comes to that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question. Where, in this case, has congress made any law abridging the freedom of speech?
 
also this crap about him basically agreeing to act in a certiain way because he signed a nba contract. is null and void.

the nab cant take away your amendment rights.
NOBODY CAN take them away.

or atleast thats what it supposed to be but as we now know the constitution is just a piece of toilet paper obama wipes his *** with
 
DutchJazzer said:
i dont want freedom form consequences.

look i get that if i go to a hells angels rally and say certain things there will be consequences.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. You want to be able to say whatever you want without and sort of consequence. The world has never worked like that.

As far as the Hell's Angels go. That's a great example. I'm sure the US constitution covers any rally those folks have in this country but I would be rather careful what I say at one...especially if it has anything to do with the Mongols being better than they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qWrVvCKNlQ

I want freedom from consequence!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top