No point in discussing this with you if you haven’t read more than one or two articles. People have suggested he was discriminating, they just didn’t have enough to convict him. But you don’t need a conviction of a crime to fire someone. That’s the part of free speech that employers get to use. And really, annihilate? He could lose 90% of his wealth and still be better off than 99% of the world.
If he wanted to keep his beliefs private, he could have. He didn’t and he paid for it. You are defending something that you would not tolerate if you were in a public place. That’s a much better place to set the bar for a situation like this, instead of this unreasonable position that you are taking that if you are rich you can say whatever you want with no consequences.
Don’t bother repeating the word “private" ten more times. Tell me what WOULD be grounds for dismissal of someone in a franchise owning position. Keep in mind that means influence over hiring decisions.
Well, let’s dispense with the free speech thing first.
As has been noted, the First Amendment refers to the government. It has been extended to state and local governments under the law, via the Fourteenth Amendment (but you’ll see some maintaining it does not do so, e.g. if you read the Supremes’ decision in the Town of Greece case). Most if not all states have an equivalent built into their constitutions or statutory law, but it is the government–all governments in our Great Republic–that is prohibited from restricting free speech, although this restriction is qualified in various respects. So, Stirling’s right to free speech is not being violated.
It’s possible that the agreements in place applicable to ownership of an NBA team restrict certain speech, and allow for the imposition of penalties when those restrictions are exceeded. If so, that’s a matter of contract law. There’s nothing that renders such contracts illegal, except in the case of certain kinds of “speech” (like voting). If Stirling entered into a contract and breached it, there is no cause for complaint. He voluntarily elected to play the game and is bound by the rules.
Racist language may violate the law, regardless of the First Amendment, at least in a civil sense when it creates a hostile workplace; that is to say, it would be actionable by private persons, or throught the good offices of the EEOC or the agency regulating employment in the particular state involved. This is a restriction the law sanctions. It may also be deemed to constitute grounds for conviction of a “hate crime” which is a more direct application of the law to speech through government enforcement and punishment which makes some of us uncomfortable (it makes me uncomfortable, in any case; I’m not certain the government should be empowered to punish speech and thought through imprisonment).
In this case, except possibly through enforcement of a contract or laws against discrimination, the law doesn’t have much to do with what is taking place or will take place. Stirling can do nothing to stop people from calling him a racist and an idiot. He can do nothing to prevent people from boycotting Clipper games. Absent appropriate contracts, there’s nothing he can do to prevent sponsors, players, friends, associates from running away from him as quickly as possible. He may or may not be able to do something if forced to sell; again, that depends on what agreements are in place. He has no due process claim because it would not be the government forcing him to dispose of his property. And there are states which have no laws prohibiting the recording of a private conversation without consent.
From the business standpoint, he is a major liability. Investors in the Clippers will want him gone.
Should this be taking place given the fact he spoke in private? Well, he’s certainly not someone we can feel any need to go to bat for; at the end of the day, he’s just another rich old white guy who is a bigot. He’s not an admirable person.
There is something about recording private conversations which seems unfair, however, and inappropriate. It is also something I don’t find admirable, nor would I think the person who records the conversation admirable.
There is something about recording private conversations which seems unfair, however, and inappropriate. It is also something I don't find admirable, nor would I think the person who records the conversation admirable.Thanks ciceronianus. I tend to stick to principles and am not so hot on the law. You brought the two together well. I heard, but did not continue researching into the gory details, that he wanted her to record the conversation. He probably didn't want it leaked to TMZ, and she says she did not leak it, like I said, lover's quarrel between people of privilege don't interest me. The point is, what I read somewhere, is he felt he was right about his views, so rather than his ex reporting what he said second hand, he wanted that audio, thinking it would vindicate him, somehow, in his twisted world.
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. LoisYeah, I do. Let's annihilate racism and racists anyway possible. Anyway possible!! It's a no brainer. I work with dozens of Sterlings every day. I'm sick of listening to racists, and I'm informed enough to know about history and how race has been used to the vast detriment to peoples of all races in this country. Including whites. These people outed Sterling and now he'll pay for it. We need more of this. When I hear racists at work and racist comments I cringe at the fact that I have to work with F**king Neanderthals.
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. LoisYeah, I do. Let's annihilate racism and racists anyway possible. Anyway possible!! It's a no brainer. I work with dozens of Sterlings every day. I'm sick of listening to racists, and I'm informed enough to know about history and how race has been used to the vast detriment to peoples of all races in this country. Including whites. These people outed Sterling and now he'll pay for it. We need more of this. When I hear racists at work and racist comments I cringe at the fact that I have to work with F**king Neanderthals. That's your right, but you competely miss the point about the principle of racism and the First Amendment. People who understand and uphold the principle of the First Amendment are not racists. Lois
That's your right, but you competely miss the point about the principle of racism and the First Amendment. People who understand and uphold the principle of the First Amendment are not racists. LoisWhat?
People who understand and uphold the principle of the First Amendment are not racists.True and even the ACLU has at times defended the despicable Klan, but as Ciceronious points out Sterling (who is a Jew BTW, how ironic) is also bound by a contract and sponsors who may withdraw their backing at anytime. And as to freedom of speech, even that is limited as to what you say and when. Recall justice Holmes (I believe I got that right, correct me if I'm wrong) ruling about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. also, no one really cares about our conversations because we aren't in the spotlight, we're not high profile movie stars, top athletes, politicians, or owners of sports teams so our ranting means little to the general public outside of friends, acquaintances, and family members and therefore has little effect on the general public. Sterling however does; everything he does, everything he says has an immediate effect on the integrity of the team and the sponsors. The watchword here is, if you're high profile then watch your mouth because someone is listening. The rest if us plebeians can pretty much say what we want, witness this forum as an example. Cap't Jack
Quoting Lois:
People who understand and uphold the principle of the First Amendment are not racists.I’m confused, Lois. Could you explain how the First Amendment and non-racism are connected?
Occam
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. LoisYeah, I do. Let's annihilate racism and racists anyway possible. Anyway possible!! This seems a bit too extreme, if meant literally. Some might accuse you of encouraging their termination "with extreme prejudice." We live in a world where our words may be used against us with considerable ease expecially if we use the technology available to us to express our opinions thoughtlessly and carelessly. For example, for some reason people feel free to express themselves without a care in emails, making statements which can be considered reprehensible even if made jokingly. Emails are a significant resource for us lawyers as a result. We must all be careful of what we say in these times.
We must all be careful of what we say in these times.Exactly! Sterling learned that the hard way. That's a great way to annihilate racism. A great way!
Quoting Lois:They aren't, but the First Amendment and opinions about racism are. It's only unpopular speech that has to be protected by the First Amendment. Popular speech needs no protection. Sterling has a right to express himself in any way he wishes. But in this case he only expressed himself in a private conversation and as far as anyone can tell he engaged in no racist speech or acts regarding his team or the NBA. In fact, he made no public statements against anyone of any race. The whole brouhaha is a red herring. LoisPeople who understand and uphold the principle of the First Amendment are not racists.I'm confused, Lois. Could you explain how the First Amendment and non-racism are connected? Occam
The whole brouhaha is a red herring. LoisThe only red herring is bringing up the 1st Amendment. The 1st(or any other amendment) has nothing to do with this controversy.
How quickly we forget! Remember Cinci Reds owner Marge Schott and her racist comments regarding African-Americans and Jews? They were “overheard” and spread through the media. That plus the Nazi armband she kept and her favorable mention of Adolph Hitler. She was forced to sell her share of the team and left baseball for the rest of her life. Once again, if you’re high profile then choose your words carefully even though they’re officially covered by Constitutional law. For that matter everyone here knows of the constant violations of the 1st Amendment’s “freedom of Religion” clause. In this case public opinion trumps the law.
Cap’t Jack
How quickly we forget! Remember Cinci Reds owner Marge Schott and her racist comments regarding African-Americans and Jews? They were "overheard" and spread through the media. That plus the Nazi armband she kept and her favorable mention of Adolph Hitler. She was forced to sell her share of the team and left baseball for the rest of her life. Once again, if you're high profile then choose your words carefully even though they're officially covered by Constitutional law. For that matter everyone here knows of the constant violations of the 1st Amendment's "freedom of Religion" clause. In this case public opinion trumps the law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/04/28/is-marge-schotts-ouster-from-baseball-donald-sterlings-future/ Cap't JackThe 1st amendment is not irrelevant, nor it is being trumped. It needs to be understood. The government is not in the business of protecting you every time you open your mouth. That's the interpretation school children use when they say something mean to their classmates and then claim "it's a free country". There are consequences for your actions, including losing your job. If your job involves the public, then the court of public opinion is exactly who your employer, or whomever controls your contract, should be listening to. And the government should keep their nose out of it.
The 1st amendment is not irreverent, nor it is being trumped. It needs to be understood. The government is not in the business of protecting you every time you open your mouth. That’s the interpretation school children use when they say something mean to their classmates and then claim “it’s a free country". There are consequences for your actions, including losing your job. If your job involves the public, then the court of public opinion is exactly who your employer, or whomever controls your contract, should be listening to. And the government should keep their nose out of it.I didn't say that the 1st Amendment was irrelevant (if that's what you mean) Lausten. And yes the "court of public opinion does have weight in determining the jobs of high profile figures as evidenced by both Schott and Sterling. Although now Sterling's wife is claiming that his remarks were generated by the onset of dementia; she's playing the sympathy card. And he's distancing himself from both his wife and his mistress. Now CNN has something else other than the missing plane to drone on about. But It'll be interesting to see how this plays out now that he refuses to pay the fine and give up the franchise. And so far what has the "government done"? Cap't Jack
The government hasn’t done anything, which is exactly right, because the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this case.
Morality is only put into legislation when the lack of it disrupts the business of government. I was listening to a history of Thurogood Marshall yesterday. Back then, although some people in the North didn’t like what was going on in the South, they weren’t doing anything about it. The NAACP did things like secretly record a Southern gas station owner telling a black man he couldn’t use the bathroom. It wasn’t about that one guy, but it’s the same issue of raising awareness and getting more people to weigh in and demand change.
And that is really the only way to effect change here. Enough people have to stand up and say “enough”. Sometimes you’re fire hosed, bitten by dogs, tear gassed, clubbed and some are killed before enough people demand change. if anything the government reacts to the needs of the people and sometimes the evidence has to be overwhelming. The demand for civil rights for African-Americans took a hundred years and women’s suffrage the same. In short, laws aren’t laws until they’re enforced. The Constitution is just a scrap of parchment until put into practice and even then it’s a fight to define it.
Cap’t Jack
Sterling seems to me to be a creepy rich old guy who doesn’t even realize how racist he is. He has clearly lived his life in some ways that many of us would consider to be wrong. To the extent that he experiences aversive consequences for that, I suggest that if you call the tune, you should be willing to pay the fiddler. The consequences, of course, should not come from the government, to the extent that he has done nothing illegal.
Personally, I hope that he quickly gives up the team, even though, in doing so, he will, most likely, become even more wealthy, since the Clippers are finally a decent team, and are currently highly valued.
I think that the more important question, for us all, is to what extent can we feel free to say what ever comes to mind (when we believe we are in a private conversation)? It seems to me that privacy is currently much more under assault, than free speech.
In Sterling’s case, however, he apparently knew he was being recorded, but assumed that the recordings would be kept private. That was a pretty poor assumption, by someone who is often in the public eye. I suspect that his mental faculties are deteriorating.
In any regard, I can’t drum up any sympathy for the forlorn billionaire.