Lois, here is a legal definition of Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Speech The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Can you please give an actual example of Sterling's right, as defined, being violated?His free speech rights are being violated by league rules. It hasn't reached the courts yet. My position is that the league is violating his right to free speech. It is not against the law to be a racist or to express racism. It may be against league rules, but a league, or any private organization, doesn't have the right to punish a person for his views other than removing him from membership. They shouldn't be able to fine him and they shouldn't be able to insist that he sell his team or otherwise involve themselves in his private affairs. The team may be worthless without league membership, but he is allowed by law to run his own business into the ground if he wishes to. There are several people willing to "take the team off his hands," but he should not be forced to sell it. It belongs to him, fair and square. Why should he be forced to sell something he owns? Because someone else wants to buy it? Because the players have their noses out of joint? There is no law that says he can't hold onto the team if that's what he wants to do, even if it becomes worthless in the process. The players do not own the team and the league does not own the team. Sterling owns it and he can do as he pleases with it. Have you ever heard of a the sole owner of a company being forced to sell it because his employees or his customers didn't like his opinions? Lois
Lois, here is a legal definition of Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Speech The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Can you please give an actual example of Sterling's right, as defined, being violated?His free speech rights are being violated by league rules. It hasn't reached the courts yet. My position is that the league is violating his right to free speech. It is not against the law to be a racist or to express racism. It may be against league rules, but a league, or any private organization, doesn't have the right to punish a person for his views other than removing him from membership. They shouldn't be able to fine him and they shouldn't be able to insist that he sell his team or otherwise involve themselves in his private affairs. The team may be worthless without league membership, but he is allowed by law to run his own business into the ground if he wishes to. There are several people willing to "take the team off his hands," but he should not be forced to sell it. It belongs to him, fair and square. Why should he be forced to sell something he owns? Because someone else wants to buy it? Because the players have their noses out of joint? There is no law that says he can't hold onto the team if that's what he wants to do, even if it becomes worthless in the process. The players do not own the team and the league does not own the team. Sterling owns it and he can do as he pleases with it. Have you ever heard of a the sole owner of a company being forced to sell it because his employees or his customers didn't like his opinions? Lois Well, the law is written naming "government" to be prohibited from trying to restrict a person's free speech, and the NBA is not the government. The NBA has the same rights as you, if you decide to sever a relationship with someone you don't agree with. The fines and banishment are probably written into the contract for all members of the NBA. That contract is between persons and can not be made illegal or invalid by the government unless it violates the law. If that contract was in violation of the law, it would already be declared void by the government and the NBA would have no ability to do anything to Sterling. Ask any lawyer you know, and you will invariably be told that that contract is legally binding and does not violate the law in any way. The only people who can make him sell his stake in the team are the other owners. He holds the most stock in team ownership, but he does not own it outright. They have to vote him out to to force him to sell his interest in the team. No one can force them to do that, but the value of the team with him in the picture is basically decimated. The other owners will be making a financial decision masquerading as social justice, but ultimately, it is all about the money. When this goes to court, and it surely will, he may base his claim against the NBA on your understanding of the law. If he takes that approach, the NBA will obviously and correctly be able to disqualify that claim by asking how they have tried to interfere with or restrict his ability to state his opinions and think as he sees fit? Then they will move on to their reasons for there action against him, chiefly that he has damaged the image of the NBA and therefore caused financial damage to the NBA. They will also state that had they taken no action against him, the NBA would be seen as complicit with his racism, and that that would have completely destroyed the NBA image and therefore it's monetary value as an organization. Then they will point out that this action is in line with the parts of the contract that he agreed to and signed that lay out what the NBA may do if a is a member causes damage to the NBA image. I doubt very much if a jury is going to see this as a matter of free speech being trampled on after they hear both sides and the law is explained to them by the judge but hey, stranger verdicts have happened. I look forward to seeing what he does base his claim against the NBA on, but until a jury finds the NBA guilty of infringing on Sterling's right to free speech, it doesn't meet the definition of the law as written. We all have opinions about many high profile cases but the last word is from the jury, not us.
Lois, here is a legal definition of Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Speech The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Can you please give an actual example of Sterling's right, as defined, being violated?His free speech rights are being violated by league rules. It hasn't reached the courts yet. My position is that the league is violating his right to free speech. It is not against the law to be a racist or to express racism. It may be against league rules, but a league, or any private organization, doesn't have the right to punish a person for his views other than removing him from membership. They shouldn't be able to fine him and they shouldn't be able to insist that he sell his team or otherwise involve themselves in his private affairs. The team may be worthless without league membership, but he is allowed by law to run his own business into the ground if he wishes to. There are several people willing to "take the team off his hands," but he should not be forced to sell it. It belongs to him, fair and square. Why should he be forced to sell something he owns? Because someone else wants to buy it? Because the players have their noses out of joint? There is no law that says he can't hold onto the team if that's what he wants to do, even if it becomes worthless in the process. The players do not own the team and the league does not own the team. Sterling owns it and he can do as he pleases with it. Have you ever heard of a the sole owner of a company being forced to sell it because his employees or his customers didn't like his opinions? Lois Well, the law is written naming "government" to be prohibited from trying to restrict a person's free speech, and the NBA is not the government. The NBA has the same rights as you, if you decide to sever a relationship with someone you don't agree with. The fines and banishment are probably written into the contract for all members of the NBA. That contract is between persons and can not be made illegal or invalid by the government unless it violates the law. If that contract was in violation of the law, it would already be declared void by the government and the NBA would have no ability to do anything to Sterling. Ask any lawyer you know, and you will invariably be told that that contract is legally binding and does not violate the law in any way. The only people who can make him sell his stake in the team are the other owners. He holds the most stock in team ownership, but he does not own it outright. They have to vote him out to to force him to sell his interest in the team. No one can force them to do that, but the value of the team with him in the picture is basically decimated. The other owners will be making a financial decision masquerading as social justice, but ultimately, it is all about the money. When this goes to court, and it surely will, he may base his claim against the NBA on your understanding of the law. If he takes that approach, the NBA will obviously and correctly be able to disqualify that claim by asking how they have tried to interfere with or restrict his ability to state his opinions and think as he sees fit? Then they will move on to their reasons for there action against him, chiefly that he has damaged the image of the NBA and therefore caused financial damage to the NBA. They will also state that had they taken no action against him, the NBA would be seen as complicit with his racism, and that that would have completely destroyed the NBA image and therefore it's monetary value as an organization. Then they will point out that this action is in line with the parts of the contract that he agreed to and signed that lay out what the NBA may do if a is a member causes damage to the NBA image. I doubt very much if a jury is going to see this as a matter of free speech being trampled on after they hear both sides and the law is explained to them by the judge but hey, stranger verdicts have happened. I look forward to seeing what he does base his claim against the NBA on, but until a jury finds the NBA guilty of infringing on Sterling's right to free speech, it doesn't meet the definition of the law as written. We all have opinions about many high profile cases but the last word is from the jury, not us. He had freewill to sign his contract and his contract is all that matters. If he broke his contract then they can do/punish/fine/restrict what the agreement allows. That may be hashed out in court but I'd bet the NBA will win out.
As to the legality of his being recorded, he knew he was being recorded and insisted on it so he would not be misquoted. No word on who released it, yet.
It appears that his very young mistress was a beautiful African-American who got pissed (probably had to take all sorts of humiliation and recognized that he was going to find someone new to degrade), so taped him and released it. While everyone around him knew of his vicious racist attitudes, they probably didn't have this kind of clear evidence until now. OccamActually, they've had plenty of evidence and chose to ignore it when it wasn't in their best interests. It is not against any law to be a racist and to express it privately or publicly. IMO, the league has no authority over his opinions, and certainly not opinions expressed in a private conversation. I don't think a private corporation should be able to censure anyone, and certainly not fine anyone or take away his property. They can throw him and his team out of the league, but nothing more. However, they want to get rid of him and requisition his team, which they never had any right to. If you said something your mortgage company didn't like, should they be ale to take your house or force you to sell it? Lois
Lois, here is a legal definition of Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Speech The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Can you please give an actual example of Sterling's right, as defined, being violated?His free speech rights are being violated by league rules. It hasn't reached the courts yet. My position is that the league is violating his right to free speech. It is not against the law to be a racist or to express racism. It may be against league rules, but a league, or any private organization, doesn't have the right to punish a person for his views other than removing him from membership. They shouldn't be able to fine him and they shouldn't be able to insist that he sell his team or otherwise involve themselves in his private affairs. The team may be worthless without league membership, but he is allowed by law to run his own business into the ground if he wishes to. There are several people willing to "take the team off his hands," but he should not be forced to sell it. It belongs to him, fair and square. Why should he be forced to sell something he owns? Because someone else wants to buy it? Because the players have their noses out of joint? There is no law that says he can't hold onto the team if that's what he wants to do, even if it becomes worthless in the process. The players do not own the team and the league does not own the team. Sterling owns it and he can do as he pleases with it. Have you ever heard of a the sole owner of a company being forced to sell it because his employees or his customers didn't like his opinions? Lois Well, the law is written naming "government" to be prohibited from trying to restrict a person's free speech, and the NBA is not the government. The NBA has the same rights as you, if you decide to sever a relationship with someone you don't agree with. The fines and banishment are probably written into the contract for all members of the NBA. That contract is between persons and can not be made illegal or invalid by the government unless it violates the law. If that contract was in violation of the law, it would already be declared void by the government and the NBA would have no ability to do anything to Sterling. Ask any lawyer you know, and you will invariably be told that that contract is legally binding and does not violate the law in any way. The only people who can make him sell his stake in the team are the other owners. He holds the most stock in team ownership, but he does not own it outright. They have to vote him out to to force him to sell his interest in the team. No one can force them to do that, but the value of the team with him in the picture is basically decimated. The other owners will be making a financial decision masquerading as social justice, but ultimately, it is all about the money. When this goes to court, and it surely will, he may base his claim against the NBA on your understanding of the law. If he takes that approach, the NBA will obviously and correctly be able to disqualify that claim by asking how they have tried to interfere with or restrict his ability to state his opinions and think as he sees fit? Then they will move on to their reasons for there action against him, chiefly that he has damaged the image of the NBA and therefore caused financial damage to the NBA. They will also state that had they taken no action against him, the NBA would be seen as complicit with his racism, and that that would have completely destroyed the NBA image and therefore it's monetary value as an organization. Then they will point out that this action is in line with the parts of the contract that he agreed to and signed that lay out what the NBA may do if a is a member causes damage to the NBA image. I doubt very much if a jury is going to see this as a matter of free speech being trampled on after they hear both sides and the law is explained to them by the judge but hey, stranger verdicts have happened. I look forward to seeing what he does base his claim against the NBA on, but until a jury finds the NBA guilty of infringing on Sterling's right to free speech, it doesn't meet the definition of the law as written. We all have opinions about many high profile cases but the last word is from the jury, not us. So far there is no jury, no judge and no prosecutor. There is only the league trying to take on all of those roles illegally. Besides that, no law has been broken by Sterling, so why would courts be involved in this fiasco unless he sues the league, which he has every right to do. Lois
Lois, here is a legal definition of Freedom of Speech: Freedom of Speech The right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction. Can you please give an actual example of Sterling's right, as defined, being violated?His free speech rights are being violated by league rules. It hasn't reached the courts yet. My position is that the league is violating his right to free speech. It is not against the law to be a racist or to express racism. It may be against league rules, but a league, or any private organization, doesn't have the right to punish a person for his views other than removing him from membership. They shouldn't be able to fine him and they shouldn't be able to insist that he sell his team or otherwise involve themselves in his private affairs. The team may be worthless without league membership, but he is allowed by law to run his own business into the ground if he wishes to. There are several people willing to "take the team off his hands," but he should not be forced to sell it. It belongs to him, fair and square. Why should he be forced to sell something he owns? Because someone else wants to buy it? Because the players have their noses out of joint? There is no law that says he can't hold onto the team if that's what he wants to do, even if it becomes worthless in the process. The players do not own the team and the league does not own the team. Sterling owns it and he can do as he pleases with it. Have you ever heard of a the sole owner of a company being forced to sell it because his employees or his customers didn't like his opinions? Lois Well, the law is written naming "government" to be prohibited from trying to restrict a person's free speech, and the NBA is not the government. The NBA has the same rights as you, if you decide to sever a relationship with someone you don't agree with. The fines and banishment are probably written into the contract for all members of the NBA. That contract is between persons and can not be made illegal or invalid by the government unless it violates the law. If that contract was in violation of the law, it would already be declared void by the government and the NBA would have no ability to do anything to Sterling. Ask any lawyer you know, and you will invariably be told that that contract is legally binding and does not violate the law in any way. The only people who can make him sell his stake in the team are the other owners. He holds the most stock in team ownership, but he does not own it outright. They have to vote him out to to force him to sell his interest in the team. No one can force them to do that, but the value of the team with him in the picture is basically decimated. The other owners will be making a financial decision masquerading as social justice, but ultimately, it is all about the money. When this goes to court, and it surely will, he may base his claim against the NBA on your understanding of the law. If he takes that approach, the NBA will obviously and correctly be able to disqualify that claim by asking how they have tried to interfere with or restrict his ability to state his opinions and think as he sees fit? Then they will move on to their reasons for there action against him, chiefly that he has damaged the image of the NBA and therefore caused financial damage to the NBA. They will also state that had they taken no action against him, the NBA would be seen as complicit with his racism, and that that would have completely destroyed the NBA image and therefore it's monetary value as an organization. Then they will point out that this action is in line with the parts of the contract that he agreed to and signed that lay out what the NBA may do if a is a member causes damage to the NBA image. I doubt very much if a jury is going to see this as a matter of free speech being trampled on after they hear both sides and the law is explained to them by the judge but hey, stranger verdicts have happened. I look forward to seeing what he does base his claim against the NBA on, but until a jury finds the NBA guilty of infringing on Sterling's right to free speech, it doesn't meet the definition of the law as written. We all have opinions about many high profile cases but the last word is from the jury, not us. So, are you saying it's OK for private companies to restrict free speech? Lois
As to the legality of his being recorded, he knew he was being recorded and insisted on it so he would not be misquoted. No word on who released it, yet. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stiviano-president-sterling-20140430,0,5808626.story#axzz30Q6amuerIt coud not be used in a court of law against him. It was taken without his permission. He gave his permission to be recorded for his own use. I'm really amazed at how little people know about the law and how quick they are to back an organization that would restrict a person's rights. They are quick to overlook principles that many people have fought and died for. Unfortunately, most people don't understand or care about principles, especially if they concern people they don't like. It's people we don't like whose rights are being trampled on that we should be most protective of. Lois
No, I’m not saying it’s right, but it is legal. In our monetary system, and I mean the whole world when I say this, financial concerns always out weigh people’s rights. Markets, corporations, religions, and capitalism only care about financial growth and financial domination. All these organizations go to great lengths to appear as though they care about people more than money. And most of the people in these organizations believe the image the corporation makes for itself. But the bottom line is that a poor public image is a financial liability. It always come down to money.
As to the legality of his being recorded, he knew he was being recorded and insisted on it so he would not be misquoted. No word on who released it, yet. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-stiviano-president-sterling-20140430,0,5808626.story#axzz30Q6amuerIt coud not be used in a court of law against him. It was taken without his permission. He gave his permission to be recorded for his own use. I'm really amazed at how little people know about the law and how quick they are to back an organization that would restrict a person's rights. They are quick to overlook principles that many people have fought and died for. Unfortunately, most people don't understand or care about principles, especially if they concern people they don't like. It's people we don't like whose rights are being trampled on that we should be most protective of. Lois It hasn't been used in a court of law and doesn't need to be to do its damage. He could try to sue whomever released it, but this bell can't be un-rung. Regardless of how this information was released, the public can't unlearn what they have learned about his racist opinions. How has the NBA restricted his rights? If they have, Sterling is an attorney and the lawsuit will be filed. If you rent a DVD and return it late and they charge you a late fee and cancel your membership, is the video store restricting your rights? You are siting laws that you assume must exist but they don't. Can you site an actual law that the NBA has broken? Can you find the law and show it here?
Evidence does not only have meaning if it is actionable in a court of law. We still live in a time were you can be punished for your opinions. No one anywhere has said he does not have the right to have his opinions. He is not being charged in a court of law. He signed a contract with the NBA and agreed to abide by its rules and pay fines etc. accordingly. He will likely sue the NBA and that will determine if the NBA has acted outside the provisions of the contract they have with The Clippers owners. His partners in business who will be financially damaged by his behavior have a legal right to compensation for that financial damage. The right to free speech protects the right to say or think whatever you want, but it does not absolve you or protect you from the ramifications of your free speech in the court of public regard. Any public figure of any kind has always and will always have their public image damaged by the exposure of their opinions and attitudes if those opinions and attitudes are considered repulsive by the culture he or she lives and thrives in. They make their living by public approval and are subject to how fickle that approval actually is. That's the cost of doing business and everyone knows it going in. I am curious how those who want to defend his free speech might describe the way or ways the law should protect him from the ramifications of the ruin of his public image that he, himself damaged.He may have damaged his own image but he has a right to do that. There is no law against ruining one's own self image. He is subject to public disapproval, as everyone is. But what the league is suggesting goes far beyond public disapproval and may be against the law. You mention his business partners, but the way I heard it he owns the team outright and has no partners in that investment. Lois
I'm afraid you've missed my point. It isn't that I don't think he's a racist. He obviously is. My question is Does he have a right to be a racist and express it privately? LoisExactly, that is a lot of what makes this so hilarious. Are we supposed to believe that plenty of people he knew were not aware of his attitudes? Possibly even NBA officials. It is just that is has become TOO PUBLIC. What has he done that is actually illegal? It would not surprise me if he could not actually sue the NBA over the banning and win. Of course there would be nothing he could do about all of the Clipper sponsors dropping out. psik That was the chance he took. Sponsors have the right to drop out for any reason or no reason. Lois
Evidence does not only have meaning if it is actionable in a court of law. We still live in a time were you can be punished for your opinions. No one anywhere has said he does not have the right to have his opinions. He is not being charged in a court of law. He signed a contract with the NBA and agreed to abide by its rules and pay fines etc. accordingly. He will likely sue the NBA and that will determine if the NBA has acted outside the provisions of the contract they have with The Clippers owners. His partners in business who will be financially damaged by his behavior have a legal right to compensation for that financial damage. The right to free speech protects the right to say or think whatever you want, but it does not absolve you or protect you from the ramifications of your free speech in the court of public regard. Any public figure of any kind has always and will always have their public image damaged by the exposure of their opinions and attitudes if those opinions and attitudes are considered repulsive by the culture he or she lives and thrives in. They make their living by public approval and are subject to how fickle that approval actually is. That's the cost of doing business and everyone knows it going in. I am curious how those who want to defend his free speech might describe the way or ways the law should protect him from the ramifications of the ruin of his public image that he, himself damaged.He may have damaged his own image but he has a right to do that. There is no law against ruining one's own self image. He is subject to public disapproval, as everyone is. But what the league is suggesting goes far beyond public disapproval and may be against the law. You mention his business partners, but the way I heard it he owns the team outright and has no partners in that investment. Lois No, but there are contracts that say you can't damage the image of the company your are contracted with by your behavior and there are penalties for that.
Evidence does not only have meaning if it is actionable in a court of law. We still live in a time were you can be punished for your opinions. No one anywhere has said he does not have the right to have his opinions. He is not being charged in a court of law. He signed a contract with the NBA and agreed to abide by its rules and pay fines etc. accordingly. He will likely sue the NBA and that will determine if the NBA has acted outside the provisions of the contract they have with The Clippers owners. His partners in business who will be financially damaged by his behavior have a legal right to compensation for that financial damage. The right to free speech protects the right to say or think whatever you want, but it does not absolve you or protect you from the ramifications of your free speech in the court of public regard. Any public figure of any kind has always and will always have their public image damaged by the exposure of their opinions and attitudes if those opinions and attitudes are considered repulsive by the culture he or she lives and thrives in. They make their living by public approval and are subject to how fickle that approval actually is. That's the cost of doing business and everyone knows it going in. I am curious how those who want to defend his free speech might describe the way or ways the law should protect him from the ramifications of the ruin of his public image that he, himself damaged.He may have damaged his own image but he has a right to do that. There is no law against ruining one's own self image. He is subject to public disapproval, as everyone is. But what the league is suggesting goes far beyond public disapproval and may be against the law. You mention his business partners, but the way I heard it he owns the team outright and has no partners in that investment. Lois No, but there are contracts that say you can't damage the image of the company your are contracted with by your behavior and there are penalties for that. How did he damage the image of the company he's contracted with? In a private conversation? How does that work? Lois
So, are you saying it's OK for private companies to restrict free speech? LoisI'm starting to have some serious doubts about you Lois. Do you have a job? Can you walk into your office and say anything you want? Do you have the right to destroy the project you are working on and keep your job? Where have you been for the last 30 years? I don't agree with all of the possible ways that harassment and "being offended" can be enforced, but those new laws are helping to eradicate institutionalized racism and sexism. It is absolutely illegal to "be racist" if you are in a position to do something about it. Sterling never got caught saying something about a particular salary or hiring decision, but have you looked at the number of black coaches in all of sports. There is a reason for that. The NBA couldn't both do nothing about Sterling and make a case that they are living up to EEOC standards. Free speech means he can say what he wants. It also means those who are affected by it, those he is in contracts with, can say and do what they want in reaction to it. That's what the government protects. The question shouldn't be why did the NBA take this action on this person, it should be, why aren't they taking action on others. The reasons they aren't include that the first black NBA player is still alive. There has been a huge change in the culture within the lifetime of people like Sterling. I feel bad for what he must be going through mentally, but let him get a shrink and deal with it, there's no reason to allow him to continue to profit from basketball and affect others around him.
I think you have to recognize that Lois is a strong advocate of the First Amendment. And, to answer her question about Lee’s point, if his comments (and his history of them, not just the private one that precipitated this) cause some fans to avoid attending the games and/or some of the best players to refuse to join his club damage his company, Lee’s statement applies.
Occam
Sterling has prostate cancer. My guess is that the owners know they can’t force him to sell, but they will vote to do so, so as to appear to be doing something. If he sells, he will have to pay a huge capital gains tax on the team. If he fights until death, his children/wife will get the stepped up value and their taxes will go way, way down.
I’m still waiting for the Redskins to change their name. It just might happen before I die…but I’m not holding my breath.
So, are you saying it's OK for private companies to restrict free speech? LoisI'm starting to have some serious doubts about you Lois. Do you have a job? Can you walk into your office and say anything you want? Do you have the right to destroy the project you are working on and keep your job? Where have you been for the last 30 years? I don't agree with all of the possible ways that harassment and "being offended" can be enforced, but those new laws are helping to eradicate institutionalized racism and sexism. It is absolutely illegal to "be racist" if you are in a position to do something about it. Sterling never got caught saying something about a particular salary or hiring decision, but have you looked at the number of black coaches in all of sports. There is a reason for that. The NBA couldn't both do nothing about Sterling and make a case that they are living up to EEOC standards. Free speech means he can say what he wants. It also means those who are affected by it, those he is in contracts with, can say and do what they want in reaction to it. That's what the government protects. The question shouldn't be why did the NBA take this action on this person, it should be, why aren't they taking action on others. The reasons they aren't include that the first black NBA player is still alive. There has been a huge change in the culture within the lifetime of people like Sterling. I feel bad for what he must be going through mentally, but let him get a shrink and deal with it, there's no reason to allow him to continue to profit from basketball and affect others around him. He said some things in a private conversation that were offensive to people. Do you think people should be condemned for their private thoughts and private conversations? If the NBA or any entity were to take action on everyone's thoughts or private conversations you might have a different view. There was a time in Communist Russia and probably many other places as well where people lived in mortal fear that their conversations might be overheard and reported to the authorities. Writings were stolen and writers were imprisoned for them and their families were hounded. Nobody could trust anyone. Consider Andrei Sakharov. Sakharov was arrested on January 22, 1980, following his public protests against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and was sent to internal exile in the city of Gorky, now Nizhny Novgorod, a city that was off-limits to foreigners. Between 1980 and 1986, Sakharov was kept under tight Soviet police surveillance. In his memoirs he mentions that their apartment in Gorky was repeatedly subjected to searches and heists. In May 1984, Sakharov's wife, Yelena Bonner, was detained and Sakharov began a hunger strike, demanding permission for his wife to travel to the United States for heart surgery. He was forcibly hospitalized and force-fed. He was held in isolation for four months. In August 1984 Yelena Bonner was sentenced by a court to five years of exile in Gorky. In April 1985, Sakharov started a new hunger strike for his wife to travel abroad for medical treatment. He again was taken to a hospital and force-fed. He remained in the hospital until October 1985 when his wife finally was allowed to travel to the United States. She had heart surgery in the United States and returned to Gorky in June 1986. Most of Sakharov's friends in the human rights movement failed to appreciate the motivation for his hunger strikes and blamed Bonner for his sufferings. Sakharov, meanwhile, claimed his human right to make decisions that he felt to be morally necessary for him personally. Is that the kind of society you'd want to live in? Don't think it couldn't happen here. Lois
You putting one value on a pedestal and ignoring others. You’re even denying the same value, the right of the NBA to make a determination about Sterling, that is, using free speech, say they have determined his actions are harmful to their organization. This is exactly the paradox of tolerance: “intolerance will not be tolerated". Which is really not a paradox at all when you define “tolerance" as being tolerant of civil behavior that promotes the general welfare.
No, I don’t want a society that condemns people for any or all private thoughts, but I’m not worried about that happening as a result of this action. Sterling’s actions are the exact opposite of Sakharov’s. And you’re ignoring all of Sterling’s other actions. I a want a society that evaluates the whole of a person and rewards and punishes them accordingly.
The recent action, the one we all witnessed last week, was specific to a billionaire who knows how to use the law to assert his right to say anything. Most of us don’t have that. There are a lot of places in Georgia for instance where I would be fired or possibly beat up for suggesting black people be treated as equals. Do I fight that or do I just stay in Norwegian Minnesota? Sterling didn’t have limitations like that. Getting him to conform to civil society was a lot harder and this little recording was just the latest in a long battle to try to do that.
You putting one value on a pedestal and ignoring others. You’re even denying the same value, the right of the NBA to make a determination about Sterling, that is, using free speech, say they have determined his actions are harmful to their organization. This is exactly the paradox of tolerance: “intolerance will not be tolerated". Which is really not a paradox at all when you define “tolerance" as being tolerant of civil behavior that promotes the general welfare. No, I don’t want a society that condemns people for any or all private thoughts, but I’m not worried about that happening as a result of this action. Sterling’s actions are the exact opposite of Sakharov’s. And you’re ignoring all of Sterling’s other actions. I a want a society that evaluates the whole of a person and rewards and punishes them accordingly. The recent action, the one we all witnessed last week, was specific to a billionaire who knows how to use the law to assert his right to say anything. Most of us don’t have that. There are a lot of places in Georgia for instance where I would be fired or possibly beat up for suggesting black people be treated as equals. Do I fight that or do I just stay in Norwegian Minnesota? Sterling didn’t have limitations like that. Getting him to conform to civil society was a lot harder and this little recording was just the latest in a long battle to try to do that.What actions of Sterling's that directly involve the NBA am I ignoring? Sterling's other actions are not on the table. If he did something wrong outside his NBA dealings they should be dealt with outside the NBA. You may want a society that "evaluates the whole of a person and rewards and punishes them accordingly," but who should be in charge of doing the rewarding and evaluating? The government or the NBA? Or some other entity? Should your employer be in charge of evaluating and punishing your actions, including your PRIVATE conversations, outside of the workplace? Or your bank, or your stockbroker? Sterling WAS conforming to civil society when it came to the Clippers. He created and nurtured a losing team until it became a winning one--all with a majority of Black players. He obviously was not discriminating against Blacks in his dealings with the NBA. In fact, no one is suggesting he did. He made some comments in a PRIVATE conversation that had absolutely nothing to do with the team or the NBA, and you want to annihilate him for it. How is that different from any other kind of strong-arm tactics by a private entity? He's allowed to have his PRIVATE preferences, uttered in a PRIVATE conversation, just as you are. He didn't bring them to the team or the NBA. You apparently want PRIVATE utterances to be condemed and ruled upon by a private, money-making organization! That is inhumane, it is unAmerican and it contradicts the US Constitution. Lois