We previously discussed the racist comments of Clippers owner Donald Sterling. We discussed the possible sanctions under the NBA rules, which are confidential. This afternoon NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that Clippers owner Donald Sterling will be suspended for life and fined $2.5 million. That blows away any prior sanction of the NBA.
Silver announced “I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers association or the NBA. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices, he may not be present at any Clippers facility, and he may not participate in any business or decisions involving the team.” That is pretty much a demand that he sell the team though he could use his general manager for some of those functions.
The $2.5 million fine will be donated to anti-discrimination organizations, which is a particularly nice touch.
I have little sympathy for Sterling and found his comments deeply disturbing and unsettling. However, it will be interesting to see if Sterling, who is a lawyer, will fight the fine. He is being banned and fine for private comments that he did not intend to be released publicly. While this is not the government (raising first amendment issues), it is a free speech questions. We have been discussing how government employees like teachers and police officers have been punished for statements and activities in their private lives. I have opposed that trend. In this case, Sterling did not even intend for this comments to go to anyone other than his girlfriend.
The question is where the line is drawn on private comments. No one would suggest sanctions Larry Johnson for (after the Sterling comments) reportedly called for all-black teams and league or his prior comments calling players “rebellious slaves.” He was clearly upset with the news and venting on social media. I understand that. Indeed, his call for some black owners of NBA team is understandable given this controversy and reflects a long-standing objection to the paucity of black owners in the NBA. Yet, those were intended to be public comments and might be viewed as offensive by white players or owners or fans. If the NBA rules extend to private communications, I am curious as to how it distinguishes between comments both public and private. When it comes to free speech, we tend to favor bright line rules but this is a rule that is neither published nor clear. Sterling may be the easy case due to the vile nature of these comments but Silver does not address the standard that has been and will be applied to owners and players.
The counter to this argument is that, as a NBA owner, Sterling agreed to comply with the rules, including the undisclosed rules of conduct. His comments clearly created an embarrassment for the NBA and other teams. Yet, my guess is that these rules are vaguely worded and this sanction is far beyond prior punishments. He probably could challenge it under contractual and even anti-trust theories.
In the end, he is being banned for being a racist (which he vehemently denies). However, if he did not act in a racist manner to the team or fans, should his private views be the basis for a ban. What is owners are anti-gay or anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim in private? Can they all be banned if a third party reveals their views or a private conversation surfaces?
What do you think?
Cal R.
You know who burned whom in those ovens you speak of…
Here Are All The Shockingly Awful Donald Sterling Stories That The NBA Ignored For Years
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-sterling-racist-history-2014-4#ixzz30R1fbhg5
Bob, Esq.
The nondisclosed rules are published now.
http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf
Dredd has been quoting them throughout this thread.
Thanks Mark.
Think about it though. There’s a reason for the requirement of actus reus in criminal law just as there’s the requirement for action in morality.
Consider the self-restrained sexual deviant who is always thinking of raping women yet lives his life in perfect restraint.
Under the system of “morality” applied to Sterling, the person shall be punished for the thought; since action and moral choice has become irrelevant.
I made two comments to Jonathan just now.
The first one was eaten by WordMess.
Just sayin’ …
jonathanturley
Teji Malki has been suspended from posting after responding to a request not to attack posters with profanity. We have had a number of postings by what appears to be fake alias to continue to flaunt the civility rule and try to re-ignite personal criticisms of posters. I do not know if this is one of these false personas. However, the response to our request shows a continuing refusal to comply with our rules. We can only try to stop these threads before they take over the comment section but of course it takes little skill to create new identities once someone is suspended. This includes someone who has previously posted under my own name. It is a juvenile practice but all we can do is try to stop these efforts when they are discovered. I ask that legitimate posters try to refrain from responding to these posters and focus on the discussion of our posts rather than personalities. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
===================================
Will do.
Anybody notice, you passed right over Abe’s timeless thesis a few posts back as if they have no bearing. A few perspectives, please? You believed him then. Why is he not believable now? Let’s give Abe his due.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
Bob, Esq:
Good thoughts all there, Bob.
Next in line “homophobic Christians”… Step to the left please. The ovens are around the corner.
Feynman:
I know several people on the board of an HOA. They can lien your home, and in some instances, they can foreclose for non-payment of HOA dues or fines. It’s called an “HOA Foreclosure.”
HOA’s can be a headache for all involved sometimes.
In Arizona the HOA can only put a lien on your house for HOA fees and they cannot force a sale. However, they do collect (with interest) when the house is sold. Fines for various HOA violations do not HAVE to be paid and there is nothing the HOA can do about it.
Darren – The filter does not like me today. Can you retrieve another post for me? Thanks!
Darren – Thanks!
And that’s a little creepy that there are possibly posters using various aliases for the express purposes of turning interesting discussions into a brawl. That’s a good motivation for all of us to ignore any provocation.
Randyjet,
A post hoc justification for treating Silverstein as a means to an end only clarifies the moral problem.
You’re not punishing him for what he did; you’re punishing him for what you think of racism.
There’s a difference between treating a human being as a moral actor capable of rational choice and treating someone as an effigy; even if it’s an effigy of racism itself.
randyjet,
my sympathies.
thanks for responding.
There’s the legal issue and the moral issue; which totally different.
The legal issues, I believe, fall into the areas of contract law and anti-trust. I have almost zero knowledge of anti-trust law. On the contract side, he’s tied into a partnership of sorts with a (non-disclosed) set of bylaws that he agreed to abide by.
Then there’s the moral problem.
The moral problem can become a legal problem when arguing whether the state should enforce a contract that results in a moral wrong. This has nothing to do with the content of Silverstein’s speech and everything to do with the process by which it was obtained and exploited.
Kant’s categorical imperative: “Adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law.”
In light of the categorical imperative and what happened to Silverstein, a few questions arise:
Shall everyone be punished for their private thoughts and comments made public without consent? Are we no longer able to have private conversations? Are we no longer rational beings able to choose between speaking in public and speaking in private?
People who say that “morally speaking, Silverstein deserved what he got” haven’t got a moral clue as to what they’re saying. “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” You cannot treat people as a means to an end. Punishing Silverstein for comments he made in private is to treat him as if he was not a rational being; but a mere animal. You are not punishing him for the consequences of his actions since the comments were never intended for public consumption; thus he acted or spoke in private. Rather you are punishing him for the content of the thoughts he, as a rational being, CHOSE NOT to share with the public—presumably because he knew the consequences of doing so. By removing the distinction between comments made for public consumption and comments made in private we are destroying our own humanity by failing to treat Silverstein as a rational being capable of making a moral choice.
By punishing Silverstein for comments he made in private, AS IF HE MADE THEM IN PUBLIC, you are treating him as a means to an end.
That’s why it’s immoral.
Bob, I would agree with you IF this were an isolated incident and that was the only thing he was guilty of. Unfortunately, this is only the final straw in his long history of racism and hatred. The fact that he has been fined, found guilty of gross discrimination and illegal practices should have resulted in his being kicked out a long time ago. If anything, the NBA was being far too lenient in its treatment of his crooked ways. So I have no sympathy for Sterling and what the NBA did, since it should have been done much sooner and with more severity.
randyjet,
Maybe the law varies by state, but in my experience the HOA can’t take your home. They can fine, place liens, and withdraw you ability to vote on association business (and maybe) withdraw pool privileges. But I hadn’t known they can take your home. Do you think your state is one that permits it?
Feynman, I live in Texas. Does that answer your question? This is the state where they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting using eminent domain to take private property for private construction projects and benefit. Yet the Supreme Court of Texas allows private oil companies to TAKE ranch land for a pipeline at below market rates. Last time I looked, the HOAs did have the power to take property if you did not comply with their orders. Unfortunately, in Texas the rule of law is a rather foreign concept when it comes to the rich oil interests or other corporate malefactors.
I really have no idea how his (soon to be ex) girlfriend or his (ex) wife are to blame for what came out of his mouth…
… But someone’s got to be blamed for what a 1%, because we can’t be holding him responsible because he’s a 1%-er.
Yes, he expressed great disdain for who his girlfriend relates to in the public eye… Michael Jordan and other “blacks”.
I hope everyone is aware that the entire NBA was ready to walk away from the playoffs. What was Silver to do? Look the other way and watch ayers jump ship thus loss of revenue for franchised teams? Nope. Let Sterling stay? Nope.
“But honey, I give them food. I give them clothes…”
Yes, he gives his “help” a lot and that should matter to him because he “owns them” and won’t let his girlfriend associate, IN PUBLIC, with black people. He’ll let her sleep with them and dine with them, just not in public.
How many plantation owners acted the same way and defense their actions in the same way…I give them food and I give them clothes…”
?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/29/sport/sterling-clippers-what-next/Does Sterling have any recourse if owners vote him out?
He could go to court, and Feldman predicted the issue would end up there. But CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the odds of Sterling winning a case “seem basically zero.”
“This is not the government enforcing a penalty. This is not something where you have the Constitution involved. This is simply a contract,” Toobin said. “There is a contract between all the owners and the NBA, and the powers of the commissioner and the power of the other owners are laid out there.”
One more.
If he owns the clippers without any outside interest, I am sure he is in a much better position to claim all sorts of breaches by the NBA. Just because a player decides not to play, that is between them and the owner. I expect it’s a breach.
The claim I hear devalue the value of the team. He owns it. If Leno wanted to take all of his antique cars to the smelter what would anyone be able to do able it.
This was a private conversation made public. I don’t agree with what he said, but he is entitled to be a racist fool if he wants to be. It’s not like he has a duty to shareholders.