Our first admendment rights are all but gone

[Pennywise]

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

I'd say she's lucky she didn't get the Baretta 'thank you'.

Grifters are bigger scum than racists.

 

[R.D.]

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...

But that's not what happended. So...fail

 

[Pennywise]

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...

And they have every right. But what right did the Botox Skank have in releasing private conversations? That's what ought to concern the great unwashed.

 

[rightwinger]

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...

It all comes down to money. The teams were in the playoffs The NBA was facing sponsors abandoning them as well s fan boycotts

If your words are costing your boss money ....you will be fired

 

[ScienceRocks]

I won't shut up until I am dead. Fact.

Fuck you fascist, assholes!

10,000,000 Americans should scream this in the street!

 

[Nosmo King]

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...

And they have every right. But what right did the Botox Skank have in releasing private conversations? That's what ought to concern the great unwashed.

Yeah. It was the girlfriend's fault he said what he did. Are you serious?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

The far right has been supporting Putin since it got is butt kicked in Congress last year.

 

[Desperado]

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...

And your point is? Other than the Conservatives were right!

 

[RandallFlagg]

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...

That's about a stupid analogy. Apparently you know nothing about the NBA. The Clippers have been the armpit of the NBA for the last 30 years. Frankly, until the last couple of years - the SUCKED. The arena was LUCKY if it was half full. I mean they SUCKED.

Sterling stood by the team the entire time.Hell, he has always been known as an "old fart billionaire racist" - the entire city of LA knows this man. They had virtually NO advertisers. However, as soon as they began to compete, the sponsors came on board - knowing FULL WELL that Sterling had already faced 20 or law suits for discrimination and the like. Didn't bother them in the least.

NOW - just like Paula Deen (who was completely exonerated, by the way) as soon as this tape became public knowledge - and fearing the backlash - the sponsors ran for the hills, and they should have. However, using their hypocritical "standards of conduct" they should never have been with the team to begin with.

It's called advertising hypocrisy.

Just like the NAACP standing behind Louis Farakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Al (big time) Sharpton. The NAACP knows what they have in these black racists and they don't care.

 

[jillian]

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...

But that's not what happended. So...fail

it IS what happened....

the sponsors ran in droves....

12 Clippers sponsors jump ship | Money - Home

and owners of NBA Teams are subject to additional rules:

Though the NBA's by-laws never have been made publicly available in their entirety, Feldman's familiarity with the legal structure of pro sports leagues causes him to focus on a key phrase governing the behavior of all participants: "conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of the team or the league." The commissioner has broad discretion in punishing such behavior, though Feldman believes there is a $1 million cap on fines.

"My educated guess is, we'll see a fairly lengthy suspension and a hefty fine," Feldman said. "But the commissioner has tremendous discretion to choose how hefty the fine will be and how long the suspension will be. And given that we don't have much precedent to guide us here, it's very hard to gauge the severity of the discipline."

To avoid a messy, expensive and public legal battle, Feldman said it's likely Silver would reach some sort of agreement with Sterling on any discipline he decides to issue.

"Given that the rules governing this situation are private, one would think that the league would want the suspension and the terms of the suspension and all the details to remain private as well," Feldman said. "And privacy is gone if it ends up in federal court."

As for the notion of a forced sale, Feldman said sports leagues specifically reserve such severe punishment for narrowly defined instances, such as game-fixing or financial inability to operate the team. Legally, Silver would not be able to apply that clause and the one dealing with "conduct detrimental or prejudicial." He'd have to pick one or the other

Sports attorney outlines Silver's 'broad powers' in Sterling issue - CBSSports.com

now what were you saying about "fail", cookie?

 

[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.

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.

And none of those things even come close to the kinds of restrictions we find on our 2nd amendment rights.

Which was my entire point... and which the liberals carefully ignore.

 

[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.

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.

And none of those things even come close to the kinds of restrictions we find on our 2nd amendment rights.

Which was my entire point... and which the liberals carefully ignore.

nonsense.

 

[Pennywise]

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.

And none of those things even come close to the kinds of restrictions we find on our 2nd amendment rights.

Which was my entire point... and which the liberals carefully ignore.

nonsense.

Compelling and persuasive retort.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Maybe you mean people (not the govt) bypassed any "due process" or 'right to defense'
and sought public actions by their own judgments?

If his wrongs were verbal, it makes sense to answer to them verbally, where
people could still work out an agreement on the grievances, corrections or restitution owed for any wrongs.

If his wrongs were in action, then actions can be taken to address that.

It seems, he could still be petitioned on a verbal level to make corrections first
BEFORE passing judgment and taking actions as a public statement.

But these reactions were by people who have freedom to choose
association or patronage. This wasn't necessary official "govt" that is bound by due process of laws.
But if you look at it that way, as his natural rights being exercised and which all people should ideally follow,
perhaps his other rights were bypassed, such as due process and right to petition
for redressing grievances; those steps seem to be skipped in directly rending
"judgment" against him without fully addressing or correcting the problem with him.

Everyone seems quick to pass judgment without hearing or hashing things out first,
I agree we could do better in following similar standards we want govt to protect for us,
including "due process" and redressing grievances civilly, instead of "public stonings" and character assassinations in the media.

 

[Londoner]

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

Your beef is the free market. The NBA commissioner works for the owners NOT the government. Sterling's words made him a liability to the NBA's profit margins. Advertisers and tickets sales and the huge network of clothing and sneakers marketed through NBA athletes was going to take a hit.

Son, in a free market, private businesses have a right to severe their contracts, especially when the person holding that contract is losing you money.

Don't let your contempt for the liberal boogeyman cloud your vision of rational market forces. Follow the money. Our wealthy capitalist NBA owners were not going to let Sterling slaughter their profit cow.

Is it fair that this man was taken out for words spoken in private? Nope, but the market isn't about fairness, it's about getting the highest return on your investment.

 

[R.D.]

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...

But that's not what happended. So...fail

it IS what happened....

the sponsors ran in droves....

12 Clippers sponsors jump ship | Money - Home

and owners of NBA Teams are subject to additional rules:

Though the NBA's by-laws never have been made publicly available in their entirety, Feldman's familiarity with the legal structure of pro sports leagues causes him to focus on a key phrase governing the behavior of all participants: "conduct that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of the team or the league." The commissioner has broad discretion in punishing such behavior, though Feldman believes there is a $1 million cap on fines.

"My educated guess is, we'll see a fairly lengthy suspension and a hefty fine," Feldman said. "But the commissioner has tremendous discretion to choose how hefty the fine will be and how long the suspension will be. And given that we don't have much precedent to guide us here, it's very hard to gauge the severity of the discipline."

To avoid a messy, expensive and public legal battle, Feldman said it's likely Silver would reach some sort of agreement with Sterling on any discipline he decides to issue.

"Given that the rules governing this situation are private, one would think that the league would want the suspension and the terms of the suspension and all the details to remain private as well," Feldman said. "And privacy is gone if it ends up in federal court."

As for the notion of a forced sale, Feldman said sports leagues specifically reserve such severe punishment for narrowly defined instances, such as game-fixing or financial inability to operate the team. Legally, Silver would not be able to apply that clause and the one dealing with "conduct detrimental or prejudicial." He'd have to pick one or the other

Sports attorney outlines Silver's 'broad powers' in Sterling issue - CBSSports.com

now what were you saying about "fail", cookie?

The end game discussed was bypassed, sweet tart.

 

[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.

And none of those things even come close to the kinds of restrictions we find on our 2nd amendment rights.

Which was my entire point... and which the liberals carefully ignore.

But your post was gobbledygook.

 

[The Rabbi]

Back during the McCarthy era liberals were outraged (rightly so)by the Hollywood blacklists of suspected communists. The argument of "they're free to express an opinion and the bosses are free to not hire them" didn't go very far. If you can be physically harassed and deprived of property then you don't have freedom of speech, period.
Today liberals are simply brain dead. It's all about what they think is OK, what other people think is criminal.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Back during the McCarthy era liberals were outraged (rightly so)by the Hollywood blacklists of suspected communists. The argument of "they're free to express an opinion and the bosses are free to not hire them" didn't go very far. If you can be physically harassed and deprived of property then you don't have freedom of speech, period.
Today liberals are simply brain dead. It's all about what they think is OK, what other people think is criminal.

I may be completely off base here, but I don't believe the NBA can "take" his team. Basically, the team will return to the obscurity that it enjoyed in the late 80s and 90s and up until the early 2000s.

They won't be able to sign players, keep players and only the bottom tier of the NBA draft will be there - pretty much as it has been since the team went to LA.

What the hell does Sterling care? He stood by this team the entire time it was fecal matter - so it's nothing more than a write off for a guy with a net worth of nearly 2 billion dollars.

I "think" that the NBA can revoke his license and ban him from the game (as they have done) but for them to go any farther than that would probably be headed to the SCOTUS.

 

[Nosmo King]

Back during the McCarthy era liberals were outraged (rightly so)by the Hollywood blacklists of suspected communists. The argument of "they're free to express an opinion and the bosses are free to not hire them" didn't go very far. If you can be physically harassed and deprived of property then you don't have freedom of speech, period.
Today liberals are simply brain dead. It's all about what they think is OK, what other people think is criminal.

The difference between McCarthy and Sterling is the government acted during the McCarthy era to ruin lives. There is no government involvement in the Sterling case. The marketplace is punishing Sterling, not congressional indictments.