ot: Donald sterling

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]It was a PRIVATE CONVERSATION between him and his mistress (let’s not kid ourselves). I’m pretty sure that everyone has said things in the heat of anger that they don’t want to be public.

Sure, she won’t admit to releasing the recordings. That might open her to civil and criminal liability.[/quote]

No, it won’t open her up to criminal liability. He knew the recordings were being made.

Ignoring entrapment issues for the moment, if an undercover cop records private conversations proving guilt of a crime, should those conversations remain private?

Sterling’s comments weren’t “heat of anger” words. They were outrageously racist words by the owner of an NBA franchise whose customer base is 60% non-white. Nobody that I’m aware of has come forward and said that they didn’t have a problem with what Sterling said. His words weren’t slightly outside the norm. They were so far outside the norm that nobody will publically admit that they agree with him. The reaction is understandable.

I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=SK in CV]
I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.[/quote]

Fear of 1984 and thought crime.

We are dangerously walking an edge of being unable even question certain ideas. But that’s a separate issue not present in this situation

[SK in CV]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.[/quote]

Fear of 1984 and thought crime.

We are dangerously walking an edge of being unable even question certain ideas. But that’s a separate issue not present in this situation[/quote]

No, it’s not present in this situation. One thing that societies do is draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Those lines shift over time. What might have been acceptable even 20 years ago is no longer. Sterling crossed that line. Is there anyone willing to stand up and say he didn’t cross it?

[spdrun]

This was a private conversation between an irate, slightly senile old man and an irritating little skank. Frankly, I’d heard worse yelled during lovers’ quarrels.

I think the line would have been crossed if he had deliberately set out to make his racist views public. As it stands, he didn’t cross any line. The person or people who leaked the conversation crossed a moral (as well as possible legal) line.

If she taped the discussion without consent and leaked it, hope she does some time in jail for it.

[no_such_reality]

What line did he cross?

That’s a serious question. Write it down in so we can see it? There’s a lot of assumptions into it or is it he dared to uttered verboten words?

I’m not defending him, But what is he guilty of? It’s a pretty big leap to brand a person a racist because he uttered words in anger at a confidante Particularly given his age and commonness of the views during the majority of his life

[scaredyclassic]

Odds are he’s impotent not senile and the words were said out of impotent rage.

Personally I wouldn’t kick him out of the nba. Not even sure it hurts the brand overall. Free publicity.

But it’s definitely not a free speech issue. It’s a rich man’s club issue.

[paramount]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=spdrun]It was a PRIVATE CONVERSATION between him and his mistress (let’s not kid ourselves). I’m pretty sure that everyone has said things in the heat of anger that they don’t want to be public.

Sure, she won’t admit to releasing the recordings. That might open her to civil and criminal liability.[/quote]

No, it won’t open her up to criminal liability. He knew the recordings were being made.

Ignoring entrapment issues for the moment, if an undercover cop records private conversations proving guilt of a crime, should those conversations remain private?

Sterling’s comments weren’t “heat of anger” words. They were outrageously racist words by the owner of an NBA franchise whose customer base is 60% non-white. Nobody that I’m aware of has come forward and said that they didn’t have a problem with what Sterling said. His words weren’t slightly outside the norm. They were so far outside the norm that nobody will publically admit that they agree with him. The reaction is understandable.

I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.[/quote]

Oprah – who has made many racist statements – had an audience that was probably 60% white. And yet no audible outrage.

[paramount]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV]
I really just don’t understand the sympathy for the guy.[/quote]

Fear of 1984 and thought crime.

We are dangerously walking an edge of being unable even question certain [/quote]

I have no sympathy for sterling whatsoever, but this sums it all up pretty well.

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]
Oprah – who has made many racist statements – had an audience that was probably 60% white. And yet no audible outrage.[/quote]

Maybe there wasn’t outrage for Oprah because what she said wasn’t outrageous? Do you think what Sterling said was acceptable?

[spdrun]

Things said during lovers’ quarrels are often not acceptable, but at the same time forgivable. Let he who is without sin….

[ctr70]

Obviously the guy is a jack a** for saying what he said and it’s deplorable and I don’t support it at all.

But I think you get into a slippery slope when you FORCE an owner to divest of a $700 million asset (Clippers Franchise) because of something he said in the privacy of his own home. These were comments made off the record in private. If the owner of Qualcomm said something in private that people didn’t like could he be forced to sell Qualcomm? If the owner of Coca Cola, Fed Ex, Disney, etc… be forced to sell their business if they said something people didn’t like?

You get into some serious issues with legal issues of ownership and the rights of freedom of speech in America.

With that said, I think Sterling would be toast anyway because the NBA is a black league and no one would play for him if he kept the Clippers, so it’s kind of a moot point. The value of his franchise would plummet as no players would want to play for him and no fans would go to the games. But that should be his choice.

[ctr70]

The other thing is that many, many famous people, business owners, black, white, hispanic, asian whatever…if someone were to tape what they say in the privacy of their own homes & blast it on the Internet, I’m sure many people would be shocked at what they said. There are a lot of hypocrites out there that will publicly rebuke Sterling for what he said, but likely talk a lot of trash in private and would be ruined if what they said was blasted on the Internet. This guy just was unlucky.

[paramount]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount]
Oprah – who has made many racist statements – had an audience that was probably 60% white. And yet no audible outrage.[/quote]

Maybe there wasn’t outrage for Oprah because what she said wasn’t outrageous? Do you think what Sterling said was acceptable?[/quote]

Not a question the statements were outrageous – because they are – it’s just a question of double standards.

[paramount]

[quote=ctr70]

With that said, I think Sterling would be toast anyway because the NBA is a black league and no one would play for him if he kept the Clippers, so it’s kind of a moot point. The value of his franchise would plummet as no players would want to play for him and no fans would go to the games. But that should be his choice.[/quote]

Is there any evidence that he discriminated against his employees while on the clock?

[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]
Is there any evidence that he discriminated against his employees while on the clock?[/quote]

Yes. Both against his employees and his tenants.

[Author]

Posts