Clipper's owner Donald Sterling in deep trouble for racist remarks

**imp** · 05-01-2014 11:15 PM

With all his billions he isnt really bothered.

Being jewish himself he should know better..

El Kabong · 05-02-2014 12:28 PM

The NAACP LA Chapter said that they looked the other way because of his donations. The President of that chapter has since resigned.

**Beanflicker** · 05-02-2014 12:54 PM

The guy's an asshole and deserves to be banned from the NBA. Bottom line.

The fact that the NBA and all these outraged groups are a bunch of phony motherfuckers who knew he was a racist and are only now reacting doesn't give the guy a free pass.

El Kabong · 05-02-2014 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

The guy's an asshole and deserves to be banned from the NBA. Bottom line.

The fact that the NBA and all these outraged groups are a bunch of phony motherfuckers who knew he was a racist and are only now reacting doesn't give the guy a free pass.

True....but again tapes from a private conversation. That is a slippery legal slope. Want to ban him? Fine, ban him in 2003, 2006, 2009...don't wait for this shit. The other owners won't open themselves up to be ousted in a similar manner. Rachel Nichols of CNNSI already said the next target might bethe owner of the Orlando Magic who all he's done is just oppose gay marriage which like it or not is a legitimate standpoint or at least used to be. we've just seen the CEO of Mozilla get kicked out for a similar point of view nothing else nothing criminal just that it's beginning to encroach on free speech. Harry Reid wants to go after Dan Snyder just because the name of the team he owns is the Washington Redskins which he considers racist so he wants to remove the owner forcibly if necessary. I'm sorry but I consider that wrong

**Beanflicker** · 05-02-2014 02:02 PM

It's not really a free speech issue, as no one is really trying to censor Donald Sterling. But the league and any other employer should have the right to terminate an employee if they deem that their actions or ideologies are harmful to the company.

The privacy issue is the more interesting discussion. On one hand I feel bad for Sterling, because we've all said horrible, politically incorrect things in the safety of our private lives, completely off any record.

But how do you put the toothpaste back in the tube? We all know he's a racist (those of us who never heard about his housing scandal were brought up to speed), so how do you undo that? It's a tough situation. We're not dealing with a criminal case where, because the evidence was obtained illegally, the case is thrown out and everything's hunky dory. This is public perception, and I can't fault the league for banning a guy who's prejudice against an entire race, especially a race that has historically been dominant in sport in question.

El Kabong · 05-02-2014 03:39 PM

Donald Sterling is not an employee of the NBA he is the owner of a franchise. Mr Sterling could shit all over the NBA's plans to remove him from by just giving the franchise to his wife. Judging from how he has handled previous court cases he will not go down without a fight he is going to be very stubborn and very difficult. It is not an easy situation obviously but to use recordings of a private conversation as the main reason to remove him from ownership is a slippery slope. The NBA new about what kind of person Donald sterling was when he bought the team and if not they knew very soon thereafter what kind of person he was to be outraged now is ridiculous and phony. He's a morally reprehensible character no doubt about it but you should always go about these kinds of issues in a proper way so as not to set a bad precedent.

after Donald sterling is removed from ownership what next where is the line? what can somebody say what can't somebody say are private conversations acceptable as reasons or evidence to remove someone from ownership? People are getting caught up just wanting to read the NBA of Donald sterling and I think it's set up for precedent going forward and other NBA owners agree and will not sign the documents or agree to have Donald sterling removed from that quickly and for something that is not admissible in any court room because they have too much at stake to let something that in essence is legally trivial doom their respective personal empires.

**Beanflicker** · 05-02-2014 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Donald Sterling is not an employee of the NBA he is the owner of a franchise. Mr Sterling could shit all over the NBA's plans to remove him from by just giving the franchise to his wife. Judging from how he has handled previous court cases he will not go down without a fight he is going to be very stubborn and very difficult. It is not an easy situation obviously but to use recordings of a private conversation as the main reason to remove him from ownership is a slippery slope. The NBA new about what kind of person Donald sterling was when he bought the team and if not they knew very soon thereafter what kind of person he was to be outraged now is ridiculous and phony. He's a morally reprehensible character no doubt about it but you should always go about these kinds of issues in a proper way so as not to set a bad precedent.

after Donald sterling is removed from ownership what next where is the line? what can somebody say what can't somebody say are private conversations acceptable as reasons or evidence to remove someone from ownership? People are getting caught up just wanting to read the NBA of Donald sterling and I think it's set up for precedent going forward and other NBA owners agree and will not sign the documents or agree to have Donald sterling removed from that quickly and for something that is not admissible in any court room because they have too much at stake to let something that in essence is legally trivial doom their respective personal empires.

Again though, we're not talking about something that has to be admissible in court. Public perception is, for better or for worse, beyond the scope of what's legal. OJ Simpson was found innocent in a court of law, but did he go back to his movie "career" and endorsement deals with Hertz and other companies? The public perception was that he got away with murder and those companies wouldn't dream of touching him. Right or wrong, it is what it is. If Donald Sterling was tried in court on the count of being racist, he'd walk because the evidence was gathered illegally. That's irrelevant to public opinion: the only thing that matter is what he said, and that it was indeed him saying it, which of course has been confirmed.

There seems to be this notion that free speech means that you can say whatever you want, free of consequence, and that's just not how it works. Free speech gives you the right to say what you want (within the law), but people also have the right to respond to what you said either positively or negatively. NBA is well within it's rights to ban Sterling and fans are well within their rights to protest, boycott, ect.