His comments show that he sees black people as an inherently inferior race, but this view is somehow morally justified because he does them this great favor by paying them so much to play basketball. You might say he is taking on the role of the "benevolent slave-owner".
How fucked up is that?
It's not just that he made offensive comments, but it's that those comments call into question his motives for taking on the position of owner.
The NBA doesn't want those players to "quit and dig ditches". They don't want fans to become outraged and stop watching games.
This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech". The first amendment only protects from the government coming down and punishing speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations like the NBA who have their own interests to protect. It doesn't mean that you can just say whatever you want without any consequence and everyone is just supposed to ignore you instead of be offended.
What do you think working itself out naturally means? Of course those players won't dig ditches, they're all millionaires thanks to Donald Sterling paying them, of course again if they don't like what he says they can quit and dig ditches, but they won't. What you're saying is that an organization has the ability to trample someone's rights instead? That makes a lot of sense. Donald Sterling didn't enter into a contractual agreement with the NBA as an owner which effectively revoked his right to free speech. If you don't like what he said than disagree with it. It doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to his opinion and to express it.
"Donald Sterling didn't enter into a contractual agreement with the NBA as an owner which effectively revoked his right to free speech."
He absolutely is under contract with the NBA, which is likely thousands and thousands of pages of rules that he must follow at all times or face fines, including what can and cannot be said, but that's besides the point.
Like I said, there's no right to be free of consequence for boneheaded things that you say - only a right that the government can't throw you in jail for it.
Let me illustrate with an example. Say you invite me to a party that you are hosting at your home. At the party, I go around and tell all of the guests that your wife is a sleazy whore who sleeps with all of the men in town. When you catch wind of this, you immediately kick my ass out and never invite me back. Does that violate my first amendment rights? Can I go to court and sue you to re-invite me back to your parties? Hell no.
The only thing the first amendment guarantees is that congress can't pass a law that makes it illegal for me to call your wife a sleazy whore. The police can't arrest me for that, but you are free to kick me out of your home.
You own the house, how does that possibly compare to this scenario at all?? And yes you have every right to kick me out of your house whether I say anything or not!
What he said was in his own privately held conversation, that someone secretly recorded. He didn't call a press conference, he said it to one other person. And if the NBA has a contractual obligation to regulate what owners say, in their own privacy, than I wana read that with my own eyes.
You people with political correctness, where does it end?
So you obviously believe Jay-Z should be banned right? He wore a medallion representative of the "five Percenter's". And when asked if he subscribes to their beliefs said and I quote " A little bit"
I think that nba owner Donald sterlings lifetime ban was excessive
← View full post
His comments show that he sees black people as an inherently inferior race, but this view is somehow morally justified because he does them this great favor by paying them so much to play basketball. You might say he is taking on the role of the "benevolent slave-owner".
How fucked up is that?
It's not just that he made offensive comments, but it's that those comments call into question his motives for taking on the position of owner.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Those players make a choice to play for him, if they don't want to, they can quit and dig ditches.
Freedom of speech wasn't written as "You have freedom of speech but only to say things that are politically correct".
Either we have freedom of speech or we don't.
--
Sog
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The NBA doesn't want those players to "quit and dig ditches". They don't want fans to become outraged and stop watching games.
This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech". The first amendment only protects from the government coming down and punishing speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations like the NBA who have their own interests to protect. It doesn't mean that you can just say whatever you want without any consequence and everyone is just supposed to ignore you instead of be offended.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
What do you think working itself out naturally means? Of course those players won't dig ditches, they're all millionaires thanks to Donald Sterling paying them, of course again if they don't like what he says they can quit and dig ditches, but they won't. What you're saying is that an organization has the ability to trample someone's rights instead? That makes a lot of sense. Donald Sterling didn't enter into a contractual agreement with the NBA as an owner which effectively revoked his right to free speech. If you don't like what he said than disagree with it. It doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to his opinion and to express it.
--
Sog
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Donald Sterling didn't enter into a contractual agreement with the NBA as an owner which effectively revoked his right to free speech."
He absolutely is under contract with the NBA, which is likely thousands and thousands of pages of rules that he must follow at all times or face fines, including what can and cannot be said, but that's besides the point.
Like I said, there's no right to be free of consequence for boneheaded things that you say - only a right that the government can't throw you in jail for it.
Let me illustrate with an example. Say you invite me to a party that you are hosting at your home. At the party, I go around and tell all of the guests that your wife is a sleazy whore who sleeps with all of the men in town. When you catch wind of this, you immediately kick my ass out and never invite me back. Does that violate my first amendment rights? Can I go to court and sue you to re-invite me back to your parties? Hell no.
The only thing the first amendment guarantees is that congress can't pass a law that makes it illegal for me to call your wife a sleazy whore. The police can't arrest me for that, but you are free to kick me out of your home.
--
[Old Memory]
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You own the house, how does that possibly compare to this scenario at all?? And yes you have every right to kick me out of your house whether I say anything or not!
What he said was in his own privately held conversation, that someone secretly recorded. He didn't call a press conference, he said it to one other person. And if the NBA has a contractual obligation to regulate what owners say, in their own privacy, than I wana read that with my own eyes.
You people with political correctness, where does it end?
So you obviously believe Jay-Z should be banned right? He wore a medallion representative of the "five Percenter's". And when asked if he subscribes to their beliefs said and I quote " A little bit"
But black people can't be racist.