Our first admendment rights are all but gone

[koshergrl]

Again, when did Putin become the darling of the right?

Oh yeah, never. The left doesn't like him because he's not leftist enough. So they pretend the right loves him. What a joke.

If I had to venture a guess, based on this board, it would be because there have been some 'right' posters who have said they consider Putin a better leader than Obama.

Which in no way makes us Putin fans.

 

[Pennywise]

Who gave the skank the right to disseminate the tape?

I hope all you assclowns who think justice is being served are prepared to have your own private comments open the scrutiny of public opinion. There's not a living soul on this shitty planet who can come out of that kind of ass reaming unscathed.

But, this is what an 80 year old fool gets when getting into bed with a 30 year old botoxed hag looking for her own fame. The question is not what she is, but what her fee was.

I agree that he was set up by a money hungry skank big time, but it still isn't a case of freedom of speech violation.

I'm only commenting on what bullshit it is to release a tape of a private conversation. The man is a fool. And the girl is a pig.

 

[NLT]

I find it funny that all these people in the NBA and the Sports News that are so outraged by Sterling's comments. They knew how he was years ago and they still took his money, now that the mainstream media has gotten hold of it, they act all surprised and outraged,including his players. Sterling is a racist, but the NBA Players and the Sports media are hypocrites.

 

[jillian]

Again, when did Putin become the darling of the right?

Oh yeah, never. The left doesn't like him because he's not leftist enough. So they pretend the right loves him. What a joke.

that has no rational relationship to reality

the right does love him because the Obama deranged loons have done nothing but root for the nasty little KGB'er.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our first admendment rights are all but gone

Not at all. You are being allowed to post.

Sterling's problems is business and the disrespect he brought upon it and the disdain on himself.

He will suffer personally, socially, and economically, which is appropriate.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, when did Putin become the darling of the right?

Oh yeah, never. The left doesn't like him because he's not leftist enough. So they pretend the right loves him. What a joke.

that has no rational relationship to reality

the right does love him because the Obama deranged loons have done nothing but root for the nasty little KGB'er.

Putin violates free speech. He puts people in jail for what they say

Pussy Riot had their free speech violated, Sterling did not

 

[Avatar4321]

Again, when did Putin become the darling of the right?

Oh yeah, never. The left doesn't like him because he's not leftist enough. So they pretend the right loves him. What a joke.

that has no rational relationship to reality

the right does love him because the Obama deranged loons have done nothing but root for the nasty little KGB'er.

Rooting for Putin? Are you forgetting that it was Obama who was promising him that after his reelection he could give him more flexibility?

The fact that Obama has a piss poor foreign policy doesnt change the fact that Putin's actions are wrong.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking the right supports Putin, be my guest. You just end up destroying your own credibility with rational people.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, when did Putin become the darling of the right?

Oh yeah, never. The left doesn't like him because he's not leftist enough. So they pretend the right loves him. What a joke.

that has no rational relationship to reality

the right does love him because the Obama deranged loons have done nothing but root for the nasty little KGB'er.

Yeah, and you sound like you're on drugs.

The right doesn't love him. And broadcasting a lie isn't going to change reality.

 

[bodecea]

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

Did they come and arrest him today? When is his trial? What are the charges?

 

[bodecea]

Who gave the skank the right to disseminate the tape?

I hope all you assclowns who think justice is being served are prepared to have your own private comments open the scrutiny of public opinion. There's not a living soul on this shitty planet who can come out of that kind of ass reaming unscathed.

But, this is what an 80 year old fool gets when getting into bed with a 30 year old botoxed hag looking for her own fame. The question is not what she is, but what her fee was.

Gee. You sound upset.

 

[jillian]

Again, when did Putin become the darling of the right?

Oh yeah, never. The left doesn't like him because he's not leftist enough. So they pretend the right loves him. What a joke.

that has no rational relationship to reality

the right does love him because the Obama deranged loons have done nothing but root for the nasty little KGB'er.

Yeah, and you sound like you're on drugs.

The right doesn't love him. And broadcasting a lie isn't going to change reality.

stop projecting, dear..... half your posts sound like you're on drugs.

the only reason you'd love the KGB'er... who is nothing but a dictator is because the obama deranged rightwingnuts think he embarrassed the president.

 

[bodecea]

It seems like the OP's ability to understand the Bill of Rights and what the Amendments really mean is all but gone.

 

[Nosmo King]

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

Congress shall make no law is how the first amendment starts. Did Congress restrict Sterling's speech? Nope! The NBA did and it is within their rights to do so.

Quit bitching about something that isn't happening.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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

there was no violation of his first amendment right.

he has every right to spew whatever racist garbage he wants.

that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and there won't be any repercussions.

70% of the NBA are people of color. advertisers dissociated themselves from the team in droves. the players didn't want to play for the doddering racist fool.

this isn't a first amendment issue.

jeeze louise....

So I'm curious, exactly WHEN do we begin to hold the Al Sharptons and the Jeremiah Wright's and the Louis Farahkan's of the world accountable?

There always seems to be "repercussions" for white folks - but nothing for black folks - and I assume that you're fine with that?

If it's good for the goose, it should be good for the gander, don't you agree?

There is plenty of "free speech" in this country - as long as you are a minority.

Jeez louise.

 

[Desperado]

Ok so his Girlfriend is half black and half Mexican.... Yet he is a Racist?
Moving on his girl friend Stiviano was born Maria Vanessa Perez in October 1982 in Los Angeles, but successfully petitioned to change her name to V. Stiviano in 2010. Her stated reason in the court filing was, “Born from a rape case and having yet been fully accepted because of my race.” I guess she thought it would be better to be thought of as an Italian rather than a Mexican or black.
Now Stiviano did not have a problem with Sterling as a racist until March, when Sterling’s wife, Rochelle, sued Stiviano, claiming she received more than $2.5 million in lavish gifts from the Clippers owner and they needed to be returned. A big piece of the suit involves a duplex Stiviano purchased in December for nearly $1.8 million with money that Rochelle Sterling claims Stiviano received from her husband. Stiviano’s name appears on the deed, and Rochelle Sterling is asking a judge to transfer the property to her and her husband.
Rochelle Sterling’s lawsuit claims Stiviano met Sterling at the 2010 Super Bowl. Since then, the pair have been in a relationship and Stiviano has received a Ferrari, two Bentleys and a Range Rover from the Clippers’ owner, the lawsuit alleges. The vehicles are worth more than $500,000 according to the suit.
Now do you think Stiviano will return those items to Sterling?
Reasonable people may think that conversation was recorded as a blackmail threat to have Sterling wife drop the court case. Even if that was not the case it seems that the credibility of Ms Stiviano was thoroughly tarnished and the tapes should never have been broadcast for that reason.
No there was no "free of speech" violation but by the same token one would assume that a recording made in private could not be broadcast without the parties on the tape approval.
Meet V. Stiviano, Donald Sterling?s girlfriend

 

[Little-Acorn]

Our first amendment rights have indeed taken some hits over the years, though in fact this wasn't one of them.

But just imagine for a moment, what would have to be done to our 1st amendment rights, to bring them anywhere near the destruction that has happened to other rights protected by the Constitution... such as our right to keep and bear arms.

To put restrictions on the 1st amendment that are the equivalent of those commonly put illegally on the 2nd:

1.) Government would have to restrict the ownership of pens, paper, computers, printers, and printing presses to people it has examined and found they have not said anything it considers unacceptable, at any time in their past lives.

2.) People who want to publish a political tract, would have to wait a week, ten days, or possibly a month after the last time they published one.

3.) Posting a message on the Internet, which can cause the message to be reproduced dozens of times (or more) simultaneously on many people's systems, would be prohibited by the government, except for people who have submitted multiple copies of their fingerprints to law enforcement, gotten vouchers of their character from local law enforcement agencies, and have paid the government $200 for every such message they post.

....and a lot more.

 

[R.D.]

I find it funny that all these people in the NBA and the Sports News that are so outraged by Sterling's comments. They knew how he was years ago and they still took his money, now that the mainstream media has gotten hold of it, they act all surprised and outraged,including his players. Sterling is a racist, but the NBA Players and the Sports media are hypocrites.

Don't or get the NAACP

 

[jillian]

Our first amendment rights have indeed taken some hits over the years, though in fact this wasn't one of them.

But just imagine for a moment, what would have to be done to our 1st amendment rights, to bring them anywhere near the destruction that has happened to other rights protected by the Constitution... such as our right to keep and bear arms.

To put restrictions on the 1st amendment that are the equivalent of those commonly put illegally on the 2nd:

1.) Government would have to restrict the ownership of pens, paper, computers, printers, and printing presses to people it has examined and found they have not said anything it considers unacceptable, at any time in their past lives.

2.) People who want to publish a political tract, would have to wait a week, ten days, or possibly a month after the last time they published one.

3.) Posting a message on the Internet, which can cause the message to be reproduced dozens of times (or more) simultaneously on many people's systems, would be prohibited by the government, except for people who have submitted multiple copies of their fingerprints to law enforcement, gotten vouchers of their character from local law enforcement agencies, and have paid the government $200 for every such message they post.

....and a lot more.

1. you are wrong on a thousand different levels.

2. total weapons bans are unconstitutional per heller. there is nothing making unconstitutional regulation of guns.

3. i'd suggest you read first amendment cases like Sullivan v NY Times and Metromedia v San Diego and their progeny for discussions of what infringement on the first amendment is.

New York Times v. Sullivan | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Nosmo King]

Our first amendment rights have indeed taken some hits over the years, though in fact this wasn't one of them.

But just imagine for a moment, what would have to be done to our 1st amendment rights, to bring them anywhere near the destruction that has happened to other rights protected by the Constitution... such as our right to keep and bear arms.

To put restrictions on the 1st amendment that are the equivalent of those commonly put illegally on the 2nd:

1.) Government would have to restrict the ownership of pens, paper, computers, printers, and printing presses to people it has examined and found they have not said anything it considers unacceptable, at any time in their past lives.

2.) People who want to publish a political tract, would have to wait a week, ten days, or possibly a month after the last time they published one.

3.) Posting a message on the Internet, which can cause the message to be reproduced dozens of times (or more) simultaneously on many people's systems, would be prohibited by the government, except for people who have submitted multiple copies of their fingerprints to law enforcement, gotten vouchers of their character from local law enforcement agencies, and have paid the government $200 for every such message they post.

....and a lot more.

None of the rights protected in the constitution are absolutes. You cannot print slanderous or libelous items about individuals. You cannot shout "FIRE" in a theater. You cannot employ so called 'fighting words' and expect no repercussions. You cannot own a nuclear warhead, chemical weapons or biological weapons. You cannot own a tank, an aircraft carrier or a jet fighter plane armed with stinger missiles.

Restrictions on the arms the people can bear are there for the interest of public safety. When will gun lovers understand the need to respect public safety? When will they see a connection between guns and gun violence? And when will they realize that not every right is an absolute right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember when conservatives USED to say that business owners should be allowed to do or say as they please,

and just let the market decide?

...the advertisers were fleeing in droves...