Our first admendment rights are all but gone

[Nosmo King]

Another retard who doesn't know what the First Amendment says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is no law prohibiting Sterling from saying what he said. Sterling was not punished in a court under law. Sterling's punishment was meted out by the NBA, not the state. Sterling has every right to be an asshole. If being an asshole is injurious to his business, that must be understood and accepted from a business standpoint. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION at paly here. It was Sterling harming his business and others involved in that business and that BUSINESS made the call.

The NBA commissioner is not a business, champ.

Of course he is. He administers the league which is a multi million dollar enterprise. He is not the state.

Are you this dumb, or do you really believe that business is infallible?

 

[Plasmaball]

No, the owner is being forced to pay money and give up ownership of his team. There is nothing free market about that.
Of course since you don't know the free market from a prune danish you wouldn't recognize this.

Link to him paying money to give up the team?
Well I do know free market and this is that...tough shit...

You can't even get that right. He was fined 2.5M and has been banned from the NBA.
Donald Sterling banned for life by the NBA - Associated Press - POLITICO.com

A private business fined someone for saying something racist...tough shit.

Btw that 2.5 isn't giving up the team...can't even get that right

 

[Plasmaball]

I do not agree with one ounce of what that LA clipper owner said. But he said it in his own home .. Our freedom of speech is a thing of the past. I hope you liberals are happy

What involvement did the government have in this affair? Were Sterling's phones tapped? Did the government show up with a warrant to obtain his conversations? Did the court system indict Sterling?

What on earth are you bitching about? Liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, Republicans played NO HAND in this affair. Your bleating about Liberals makes no sense, but that is nothing new from the brain dead, ideologically driven mouth breathers of contemporary America.

Straw man argument. The government didnt need to be involved for Sterling to lose 1A rights.

No first amendment right was lost here...try again.

 

[Plasmaball]

Straw man argument. The government didnt need to be involved for Sterling to lose 1A rights.

Sterling did not lose first amendment rights! "Congress shall make no law" is how the amendment begins. Congress made no law that harmed Sterling's rights. What harmed Sterling was Sterling! The marketplace decided that insulting workers, customers and sponsors is unacceptable IN THAT MARKETPLACE!

The NBA commissioner is not a marketplace, dufus. If someone suffers severe loss for his statements then he effectively does not have 1A rights. The old liberals in the 1950s suffering under the black list understood this. But they were smart people, unlike you.

No first amendment right was lost here. This is why you are a joke and would be laughed put of court....plus you need to defend your racist buddies...

 

[HenryBHough]

Concerted action, team owners compelled to dance to the tune of a fearless leader on issues of political correctness, ought call into question anti-trust exemptions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is no law prohibiting Sterling from saying what he said. Sterling was not punished in a court under law. Sterling's punishment was meted out by the NBA, not the state. Sterling has every right to be an asshole. If being an asshole is injurious to his business, that must be understood and accepted from a business standpoint. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION at paly here. It was Sterling harming his business and others involved in that business and that BUSINESS made the call.

The NBA commissioner is not a business, champ.

Of course he is. He administers the league which is a multi million dollar enterprise. He is not the state.

Are you this dumb, or do you really believe that business is infallible?

You think the NBA commissioner represents the market and you ask whether I'm dumb? You're the stupidest thing on this site. You couldn't tell the market from a plumber's helper.
This was a monopoly imposing its views on a private individual. Sterling has every right to his views. He has every right not to suffer for holding them. Only an authoritarian asshole like you can disagree with that.

 

[HenryBHough]

You think the NBA commissioner represents the market and you ask whether I'm dumb? You're the stupidest thing on this site. You couldn't tell the market from a plumber's helper.
This was a monopoly imposing its views on a private individual. Sterling has every right to his views. He has every right not to suffer for holding them. Only an authoritarian asshole like you can disagree with that.

For some reason it seems impossible to post you any positive rep for this masterpiece but please know I would if I could!

We seem to share thoughts along the lines of government intervention into the monopolistic practices of the league rather than anybody's meddling with the philosophies that made America (once) great.

 

[Fang]

I do not agree with one ounce of what that LA clipper owner said. But he said it in his own home .. Our freedom of speech is a thing of the past. I hope you liberals are happy

The Clipper owner did get what he deserved. But I don't think it's the 1st amendment that is in jeopardy. It's ignorant, uneducated, social media, internet lynch mobs that people might want to start fearing.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Interesting take from Kareem Abdul-Jabar and Jason Whitlock - both black


Two Prominent Black Voices Offer a Very Different Perspective on Sterling Controversy: ?Mob Rule is Dangerous? | TheBlaze.com

In the mist of the lifetime suspension of L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling by the NBA — as well as the intent to force him to sell his franchise — a pair of voices among the flurry of reactions are zigging when most others are zagging.

Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Jason Whitlock criticize Donald Sterling punishment

They would be former NBA great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who spent much of his career on the hardwood for crosstown rival the L.A. Lakers, and longtime sports columnist Jason Whitlock.

The fact that both men are black — and have pointed out problems with the way the Sterling controversy was handled — make their viewpoints particularly interesting.


Whitlock, penning a commentary for ESPN, hit hard from the very first words of the column he posted Tuesday following NBA commissioner Adam Silver’s ban on Sterling: “In our zeal to appear righteous or courageous or free of bigotry, a ratings-pleasing mob hell-bent on revenge turned Donald T. Sterling — a victim of privacy invasion and white supremacy — from villain to martyr.”

Whitlock further calls Silver “a rookie commissioner” who penalized Sterling, whom Whitlock characterizes as “a flawed man whose rights were violated.”

More from Whitlock:

Mob rule is dangerous. Well-intentioned, TV-baited mobs are the most dangerous. They do not consider the consequences of their actions, and they’re prone to take a simple-minded, instant-gratification approach to justice rather than a strategic one.

Removing Donald Sterling from the NBA solves nothing. It sets a precedent that will likely boomerang and harm the black players and coaches who are shocked and outraged that an 80-year-old man with a documented history of bigoted actions also has bigoted private thoughts.


Whitlock also taps into larger issues regarding freedom of speech and invasion of privacy:

A right to privacy is at the very foundation of American freedoms. It’s a core value. It’s a mistake to undermine a core value because we don’t like the way a billionaire exercises it. What happens when a disgruntled lover gives TMZ a tape of a millionaire athlete expressing a homophobic or anti-Semitic or anti-white perspective?

Abdul-Jabbar makes a similar observation in his Time magazine column, which he offered even before the Sterling suspension was announced: “They caught big game on a slow news day, so they put his head on a pike, dubbed him Lord of the Flies, and danced around him whooping.”

Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Jason Whitlock criticize Donald Sterling punishment

Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.

While Whitlock and Abdul-Jabbar roundly criticize the handling of the Sterling case, neither disagrees that Clippers owner was decidedly in the wrong for his statements, and both take him to task for it.

But both writers also call out larger forces at work.

Whitlock names the “white-supremacy culture” he notes will still be looming after the dust has settled over the Sterling matter: “White-supremacy culture is created, maintained and run by rich white men, Sterling’s peers. He is the longest-tenured owner in the NBA. Former commissioner David Stern had multiple opportunities to run Sterling out of the league for his bigoted actions. Sterling’s peers have always protected him … until he had the audacity and stupidity to be caught on tape explaining the culture they maintain.”

Abdul-Jabbar takes no prisoners on his beef with those still wagging their fingers: “So, if we’re all going to be outraged, let’s be outraged that we weren’t more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let’s be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let’s be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.”

Following Sterling’s ban, Abdul-Jabbar said he was “just really thrilled” with Silver’s decision. “He handled it the right way,” he said Tuesday. “It’s going to be a new day here in this city.”

This story was updated to clarify that Abdul-Jabbar’s Time viewpoints were offered before the Sterling ban was announced.

 

[Plasmaball]

The NBA commissioner is not a business, champ.

Of course he is. He administers the league which is a multi million dollar enterprise. He is not the state.

Are you this dumb, or do you really believe that business is infallible?

You think the NBA commissioner represents the market and you ask whether I'm dumb? You're the stupidest thing on this site. You couldn't tell the market from a plumber's helper.
This was a monopoly imposing its views on a private individual. Sterling has every right to his views. He has every right not to suffer for holding them. Only an authoritarian asshole like you can disagree with that.

This was a private business who had to weigh the fact players where threatening to boycott, sponsors pulling out and other owners saying he had to go. Sponsors leaving is free market reaction. The other owners reacting is the market reacting because they know it will affect them.

You have nothing...As per usual.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course he is. He administers the league which is a multi million dollar enterprise. He is not the state.

Are you this dumb, or do you really believe that business is infallible?

You think the NBA commissioner represents the market and you ask whether I'm dumb? You're the stupidest thing on this site. You couldn't tell the market from a plumber's helper.
This was a monopoly imposing its views on a private individual. Sterling has every right to his views. He has every right not to suffer for holding them. Only an authoritarian asshole like you can disagree with that.

This was a private business who had to weigh the fact players where threatening to boycott, sponsors pulling out and other owners saying he had to go. Sponsors leaving is free market reaction. The other owners reacting is the market reacting because they know it will affect them.

You have nothing...As per usual.

Was that supposed to be a coherent point? Because it failed if it was.

 

[AceRothstein]

I thought the punishment was heavy handed, the max fine was expected but I thought a 5 year ban would have been more appropriate. Forcing Sterling to sell the team is a bit over the top.

None of this has anything to do with the First Amendment and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool.

 

[Plasmaball]

You think the NBA commissioner represents the market and you ask whether I'm dumb? You're the stupidest thing on this site. You couldn't tell the market from a plumber's helper.
This was a monopoly imposing its views on a private individual. Sterling has every right to his views. He has every right not to suffer for holding them. Only an authoritarian asshole like you can disagree with that.

This was a private business who had to weigh the fact players where threatening to boycott, sponsors pulling out and other owners saying he had to go. Sponsors leaving is free market reaction. The other owners reacting is the market reacting because they know it will affect them.

You have nothing...As per usual.

Was that supposed to be a coherent point? Because it failed if it was.

^^ What is Rabbi admitting he can't argue on the facts...typical. go back in your hole.

 

[The Rabbi]

This was a private business who had to weigh the fact players where threatening to boycott, sponsors pulling out and other owners saying he had to go. Sponsors leaving is free market reaction. The other owners reacting is the market reacting because they know it will affect them.

You have nothing...As per usual.

Was that supposed to be a coherent point? Because it failed if it was.

^^ What is Rabbi admitting he can't argue on the facts...typical. go back in your hole.

There were no facts presented in your post.
The facts are clear: Sterling was deprived of property because he expressed unpopular and socially unacceptable remarks. That means he effectively lost his ability to speak. It wasn't even a public speech but an illegally obtained tape of private moments.

 

[AceRothstein]

Was that supposed to be a coherent point? Because it failed if it was.

^^ What is Rabbi admitting he can't argue on the facts...typical. go back in your hole.

There were no facts presented in your post.
The facts are clear: Sterling was deprived of property because he expressed unpopular and socially unacceptable remarks. That means he effectively lost his ability to speak. It wasn't even a public speech but an illegally obtained tape of private moments.

Which has nothing to do with the First.

 

[HenryBHough]

There were no facts presented in your post.
The facts are clear: Sterling was deprived of property because he expressed unpopular and socially unacceptable remarks. That means he effectively lost his ability to speak. It wasn't even a public speech but an illegally obtained tape of private moments.

Good arguments but they all rest on the belief that there are such things as property rights. Those were obsoleted when The Supreme Court took the elderly lady's house in New London, Connecticut to hand it over to a corporation prepared to pay more taxes on the land. Which backfired because the corporation took so much heat that they left the land fallow. In the end the city that had been salivating for a few extra bucks wount up with goat-shit instead because the value of the land plunged and the (taxable) house was destroyed.

Please don't get attached to any material thing because It's not yours. You didn't build that. You don't own that.

 

[Plasmaball]

Was that supposed to be a coherent point? Because it failed if it was.

^^ What is Rabbi admitting he can't argue on the facts...typical. go back in your hole.

There were no facts presented in your post.
The facts are clear: Sterling was deprived of property because he expressed unpopular and socially unacceptable remarks. That means he effectively lost his ability to speak. It wasn't even a public speech but an illegally obtained tape of private moments.

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated...

 

[HenryBHough]

Correct that no first amendment rights were violated.

Government stayed out of it (except for one racist loudmouth acting in an unofficial capacity).

But what the league did demonstrates that NO sport should be entitled to an anti-trust exception. Congress needs to get cracking and end that right now as The NBA, particularly, has demonstrated that it is an out-of-control monoply. In fact, it might even be ripe for old-fashioned "Standard Oil" breakup.

 

[The Rabbi]

^^ What is Rabbi admitting he can't argue on the facts...typical. go back in your hole.

There were no facts presented in your post.
The facts are clear: Sterling was deprived of property because he expressed unpopular and socially unacceptable remarks. That means he effectively lost his ability to speak. It wasn't even a public speech but an illegally obtained tape of private moments.

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated...

So it's not a fact that he was fined 2.5M? It's not a fact he's been banned for life? It's not a fact they want to force the sale of his property?
You sure are one dishonest piece of shit. Like that wasn' tknown already.

 

[Plasmaball]

There were no facts presented in your post.
The facts are clear: Sterling was deprived of property because he expressed unpopular and socially unacceptable remarks. That means he effectively lost his ability to speak. It wasn't even a public speech but an illegally obtained tape of private moments.

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated...

So it's not a fact that he was fined 2.5M? It's not a fact he's been banned for life? It's not a fact they want to force the sale of his property?
You sure are one dishonest piece of shit. Like that wasn' tknown already.

So it's not a fact that sponsors pulled out? It's not a fact that the players threatened a boycott?
Such a chronic liar you are.
No 1st amendment right was violated.