The First Amendment: Not A Shield from the Consequences

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

Tell Me, what is the difference between dissent and active attacks on property and income?

You see, there was a time when people would just ostracize someone for having the crassness of airing a racist attitude.

Now, they actively go after your property, your wealth, your income.

So tell Me. When people are so afraid of the consequences that they will never exercise free speech, how can we say that we have free speech?

The Jews were free to exercise their faith in Nazi Germany. They just had to accept the 'consequences' of that faith, right?

Wrong.

You’re confusing First Amendment protections as they apply to the relationship between citizens and their government, where government is prohibited from placing an undue burden on the right to free expression.

That has noting to do whatsoever with the Sterling issue.

The Sterling issue is occurring only on the context of the private sector, where Constitutional protections don’t apply because liberty is not jeopardized as a consequence of government overreach.

The state isn’t ‘attacking’ property or income, and Sterling agreed to be subject to the punitive measures he’s now sustaining as a condition of joining the NBA.

 

[occupied]

So you're really ready for the government to put video cameras in every room of your house. Wow! 1984 big brother is your kind of government. Hitler must be your hero.

What does the government have to do with any of the NBA scandal? The guy is being punished because he let a damaging recording hit the media, it's breech of contract not some horrible Orwellian plot.

I just read a article from CNN which compared it to just that. lol Strange.

In the novel "1984," George Orwell wrote of the Telescreen, a device that beamed information into the home but that also spied on people constantly. Even if we were to stop the NSA in its tracks, would we still now live in a world where the Telescreen watches us? Only instead of an oppressive government installing it in our apartments, it is conveniently placed in the hands of our dear friends.

The Sterling story is not that we found a bigot and dragged him to the gallows in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. The Sterling story is about how there is no more privacy. We live in a world where you can share your intimate photos with your lover, and they will wind up on a "revenge porn" website.

We live in a world where our intimate conversations will be recorded and blasted to billions of listeners. We live in a world where, say a gold digger can spy on her sugar daddy, and the world says that the creepy old guy is the bad guy.

Opinion: What happened to Sterling was morally wrong - CNN.com

Sorry, can't really drum up a lot of sympathy for a unapologetic racist and public adulterer. Nothing about this guy suggests he is even familiar with the concept of morals.

 

[Nutz]

Speech defines character. We define people on the basis of their character, whether that speech was in private or public.

 

[Pheonixops]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

And if Sterling had made his comments in public, I could see him being punished.

But to have private conversations recorded and broadcast, is a different matter.

I agree 100%. I think that the guy is a bigot and an a-hole but that was a private conversation between himself and his girlfriend. How many of us would want our intimate conservations with our friends or significant others, broadcast? Who among us have said things in private that we wouldn't want shared with the general public?
I'm sure that he will "cry all of the way to the bank" when this is over with, I understand that the NBA has a constitution but I still can't help to feel that he got a raw deal. If he would have made his views public like the Duck guy and Bundy did, then I can see all of the fallout.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Free speech is now only money. The fascists have declared that even speech said in private is punishable.

Why shouldn't it be?

So you're really ready for the government to put video cameras in every room of your house. Wow! 1984 big brother is your kind of government. Hitler must be your hero.

Silly comment, brother. Hasty generalization and unsupported extension.

Speech has consequences.

 

[Nutz]

It's not a breach of contract. There isn't a contract written that covers the most private moments within someone's own home.

How far does this go? If you say something to a girlfriend or husband can the bank declare your purchase contract void and repossess your car?

Sterling is an owner he does not have a contract that precludes holding unpopular opinions voiced to an intimate? We have actual criminals as sports figures.

The next step is full scale investigations before buying property and racial loyalty oaths when privileged to buy.

Most contracts have a moral clause. Most employment agreements do as well.

 

[emilynghiem]

How I would teach the First Amendment is not to take parts of it "out of context" with the rest of that law (or the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution, for that matter).

Free speech, Free exercise of religion, etc. are listed
within the same context as
"the right of the people PEACEABLE to assemble and to petition the Govt
for a redress of grievances."

So if you abuse free speech or free will/free exercise
to DISRUPT the peace or security of others, you violate the spirit of the same law.
(So people will then respond in turn by "petitioning or protesting" YOU to defend THEIR right to "peaceful assemble"
and security without further breach of the peace or other violation of their equal rights.)

http://www.isocracytx.net//hp-org/letters.html#FIRST_AMENDMENT

This is how I would interpret the First Amendment where it checks and balances itself.
I also interpret People/Government to be one, so we the people are actually responsible for petitioning "one another" to redress grievances. And if people do not accept responsibility for the consequences and grievances to redress, whoever does take that on is, in effect,
ACTING as government and invoking authority by enforcing the laws.

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

 

[emilynghiem]

And if Sterling had made his comments in public, I could see him being punished.

But to have private conversations recorded and broadcast, is a different matter.

Good point.
I also believe that grievances like this
are more effectively resolved one-on-one.

Perhaps because he went so long without ever addressing this seriously,
it came back on him and blew up in his face in the worst way.

He should still be given every chance to correct the problems.
I believe he was being honest about problems that exist, so he has that going for him.

It is when people are in denial that things cannot be fixed.
This incident forced it into the public, so maybe it was the wake-up call he needed.

I certainly hope he makes the best of this opportunity,
and hope he has friends who will support and counsel him to own up and do right.

 

[emilynghiem]

Speech defines character. We define people on the basis of their character, whether that speech was in private or public.

People can also change. Maybe this is his chance to correct longstanding issues.

What will be the real test of character is how he responds to the need for corrections.

 

[emilynghiem]

Wrong.

You’re confusing First Amendment protections as they apply to the relationship between citizens and their government, where government is prohibited from placing an undue burden on the right to free expression.

That has noting to do whatsoever with the Sterling issue.

The Sterling issue is occurring only on the context of the private sector, where Constitutional protections don’t apply because liberty is not jeopardized as a consequence of government overreach.

The state isn’t ‘attacking’ property or income, and Sterling agreed to be subject to the punitive measures he’s now sustaining as a condition of joining the NBA.

Good points CCJones, I really like your msgs.

On this, I'd say yes and no.

You are right that the First Amendment TECHNICALLY applies to checks on Govt.

However, the CONTENT of the First Amendment lists elements of natural laws that all people are governed by. We all want various freedoms, and want the right to assemble peacefully and securely to petition to redress grievances, REGARDLESS who they are with.

Literally, this law refers to limits on government, and to petitioning government. Of course, you are right on point.

It is the meaning or spirit of the laws that applies to "due process" in general -- not the "official process through govt"
but the real life process where people constantly judge, object, and EXPRESS those objections to others to "PETITION" or argue for change or reform,
(or restitution or correction in the case of physical wrongs or damages done).

I believe people are referring to the "spirit" of the laws and "general principles and process."
Ideally I find ALL people are equally responsible for the CONTENT and enforcement of First Amendment rights and principles.

The same way the "Golden Rule" applies in religion, the concept of "reciprocity" and "mutual respect" also applies to Constitutional laws or "natural laws" between people:

If you want free speech, you must respect the same rights and freedoms of others.
If you want due process, and right to defense or to petition, you must respect the same.

If you "skip" due process and start imposing judgments or punishments on others,
or division and rejection, then that is usually the same response you get back in return.

So on that level, the principles in the First Amendment and Constitution, the ideas of "check and balance" and "due process" apply to ALL PEOPLE EQUALLY (not just official government as intended).
We already exercise these rights and authorities in our daily dealings with others, judging what is true and right, and agreeing what actions to take, or what reforms/corrections are needed for justice.

 

[dilloduck]

Wrong.

You’re confusing First Amendment protections as they apply to the relationship between citizens and their government, where government is prohibited from placing an undue burden on the right to free expression.

That has noting to do whatsoever with the Sterling issue.

The Sterling issue is occurring only on the context of the private sector, where Constitutional protections don’t apply because liberty is not jeopardized as a consequence of government overreach.

The state isn’t ‘attacking’ property or income, and Sterling agreed to be subject to the punitive measures he’s now sustaining as a condition of joining the NBA.

Good points CCJones, I really like your msgs.

On this, I'd say yes and no.

You are right that the First Amendment TECHNICALLY applies to checks on Govt.

However, the CONTENT of the First Amendment lists elements of natural laws that all people are governed by. We all want various freedoms, and want the right to assemble peacefully and securely to petition to redress grievances, REGARDLESS who they are with.

Literally, this means petitioning official government.

But the spirit of the laws applies to "due process" in general; where people constantly judge, object, and EXPRESS those objections to others to "PETITION" or argue for change or reform, or restitution or correction in the case of physical wrongs or damages done.

I believe people are referring to the "spirit" of the laws.

Ideally I find ALL people are equally responsible for the CONTENT and enforcement of First Amendment rights and principles.

The same way the "Golden Rule" applies in religion, the concept of "reciprocity" and "mutual respect" also applies to Constitutional laws or "natural laws" between people:

If you want free speech, you must respect the same rights and freedoms of others.
If you want due process, and right to defense or to petition, you must respect the same.

If you "skip" due process and start imposing judgments or punishments on others,
or division and rejection, then that is usually the same response you get back in return.

So on that level, the principles in the First Amendment and Constitution, the ideas of "check and balance" and "due process" apply to all people equally. We already exercise these rights and authorities in our daily dealings with others, judging what is true and right, and agreeing what actions to take, or what reforms/corrections are needed for justice.

Unless of course you happen to be the president or attorney general.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

A solid middle school D.

You have employed your full literary talent in order to explain away that which is obvious to everyone who may ever read this. I count eight different ways that you state that one's election to speak may have consequences. Not bad, if you are competing in a redundancy tournament.

Points subtracted for the weak attempt to justify Bundy's comments and for implying that your "liberal friends" wish to strip anyone of their right to be an asshole.

 

[hangover]

Why shouldn't it be?

So you're really ready for the government to put video cameras in every room of your house. Wow! 1984 big brother is your kind of government. Hitler must be your hero.

What does the government have to do with any of the NBA scandal? The guy is being punished because he let a damaging recording hit the media, it's breech of contract not some horrible Orwellian plot.

So you live in a neighborhood with a home owners association, and they force you to sell your home because of something you said in the privacy of your own home. Invasion of privacy is invasion of privacy, whether or not it's the government.

 

[hangover]

Speech defines character. We define people on the basis of their character, whether that speech was in private or public.

JudgeMENTAL, loves looking down his nose at others.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

Let's face it, you have caved to the people that think speech should have consequences. You really need to dig into the way the radical left dealt with all threats to free speech in the 1960s before you let them tell you that you have to pay for saying things that are unpopular.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

And if Sterling had made his comments in public, I could see him being punished.

But to have private conversations recorded and broadcast, is a different matter.

He did make his comments in public. He was sued for not renting apartments to minorities, made racist comments about the players on his team, made other racist statements under oath in court, got an NAACP Lifetime achievement award, and was going to get a second one. This whole thing is about hate from the people that want to take away individual rights and make them community property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

And if Sterling had made his comments in public, I could see him being punished.

But to have private conversations recorded and broadcast, is a different matter.

So being a bigoted asshole in a high profile position is fine......as long as you are private about it.

I listened to part of the conversation. This dude was being set up and was to stupid to realize what was happening.

So we ended up with a bigoted asshole in a high profile position who was so fucking stupid that he ran his mouth without thinking about what was happening.

And here you are defending; stupid, bigots, and assholes. Why?

Being a bigoted asshole has always been fine, even if you did it in public, as long as you didn't use your position to actually implement a policy that forced your bigotry on other people. That has changed now that the bigoted assholes have changed. Frankly, I don't see the improvement.

 

[bendog]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

the first amendment only restricts WHAT THE GOVT CAN DO TO SOMEONE OVER SOMETHING THEY SAY, OR WANT TO SAY. That has absolutely nothing to do with Sterling or Bundy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lets face it. The First Amendment guarantees your right to free speech. What it does not protect you from are the consequences of that speech, as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling both found out. Don't get me wrong, you have every right to say what you want to, but if you're going to say inflammatory or controversial things, you should be prepared for a tidal wave of dissent. I am a staunch conservative libertarian, as well as a Constitutionalist. But even I know when to keep my mouth shut. The First Amendment isn't a shield for someone to hide behind when they say or do something incredibly moronic or stupid.

For example, Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban said in effect after the punishment of Donald Sterling by the NBA, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons." They are. But as I said before, this country and the First Amendment do not protect someone from the consequences of being one. Be reminded, however, that as far as I am concerned, Sterling deserved every bit of the punishment he received from the NBA yesterday. The same can be said for Cliven Bundy. Bundy's issue is a bit more... complicated and murky than Sterling's was. What he said was boneheaded, but he had the right to say what he said. He was and is not immune to the consequences, but in this humble writer's opinion, he was advocating for the progression of African Americans. He blew the follow-through though.

You can't carry a bag of gold without feeling the weight. Thus, you cannot say whatever you want and not suffer the consequences. I know full well how that went as a child. There was no cussin' in my house, if I did, I was greeted with a belt or a switch to my backside. Never forget that for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction. To my conservative friends: The First Amendment isn't a "get out of jail free" card. You can't simply say something idiotic and not expect to be harangued for it. To my liberal friends: The First Amendment protects their speech nonetheless. Just because these men are racist, doesn't mean they should be stripped of the right to express themselves.

The First Amendment isn't meant to shield anyone from their stupidity. However, it remains the backbone of discourse in America, and is still one of the most hallowed rights an American can possess.

And if Sterling had made his comments in public, I could see him being punished.

But to have private conversations recorded and broadcast, is a different matter.

Actually not.

It doesn’t make any difference that his comments were made public or he thought he was having a private conversation; his comments were indeed made public and the NBA was fully justified in sanctioning him as it did.

California is a two part consent state, that makes the circumstances of the recording, and its release, relevant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does the government have to do with any of the NBA scandal? The guy is being punished because he let a damaging recording hit the media, it's breech of contract not some horrible Orwellian plot.

I just read a article from CNN which compared it to just that. lol Strange.

In the novel "1984," George Orwell wrote of the Telescreen, a device that beamed information into the home but that also spied on people constantly. Even if we were to stop the NSA in its tracks, would we still now live in a world where the Telescreen watches us? Only instead of an oppressive government installing it in our apartments, it is conveniently placed in the hands of our dear friends.

The Sterling story is not that we found a bigot and dragged him to the gallows in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. The Sterling story is about how there is no more privacy. We live in a world where you can share your intimate photos with your lover, and they will wind up on a "revenge porn" website.

We live in a world where our intimate conversations will be recorded and blasted to billions of listeners. We live in a world where, say a gold digger can spy on her sugar daddy, and the world says that the creepy old guy is the bad guy.

Opinion: What happened to Sterling was morally wrong - CNN.com

Sorry, can't really drum up a lot of sympathy for a unapologetic racist and public adulterer. Nothing about this guy suggests he is even familiar with the concept of morals.

Funny, he donated milllions of dollars to the NAACP to get to purchase an indulgence for his past crimes, and is in the process of negotiating another one. Maybe all the unapologetic hatred is coming from you.

NAACP Willing to 'Forgive' Clippers' Donald Sterling After Yanking Award - ABC News