Donald Sterling

The poor man, I feel so sorry for him!!!!!  He is gonna make out like a bandit and make gazillions for being forced to sell his team! What an outrage!

I don't agree with what Shaq did, but I don't see it as  the same thing. Sterling gave up his rights when he became an owner and agreed to the by laws of the league. 

But shame on Shaq.

As far as the wife, I feel badly for her for being publicly embarrassed by his antics but she stayed with the bigot and also was involved in some of his shenanigans over the years, while obviously enjoying being the wife of the largest landowner in LA and also a very rich man.

Of course she is going  to say that she didn't agree with his views, now she can go to the games without having to see her husband and his mistress! 

If this was a set up with others and the girlfriend involved to bring him down, good for them!

If anyone watched CNN last night, there was a former NBA owner who admitted it was about time!

No one is infringing on his first amendment rights at all. None , nada zilch. No one stopped him from expressing himself. He got to say whatever it was that he wanted. And , as the concept was taught to me at a young age in science class,. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He got to speak, people got to react. If his views and what he said was accepted and acceptable there would not have been the backlash. You can say and state whatever opinion it is that you want to. It is when you are stopped and not afforded the right to win others over to your side. This has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion, NOTHING. If you want to be an ignorant Neanderthal then you pay a price.

You don't think that he came up with the penalty  all by himself. He said after speaking with ex commish and owners and players he madehis decision. I don't see where he could have made any other than what he did.

I am glad he can never go to any game every again.  Not being able to enjoy ownership is a punishment he deserved!  So I think that the penalty was made with that in mind.

Here in FL people are talking about what has happened, takes lots of pressure off of LeBron and the Heat!

And as far as lynch mob is concerned. Too bad there wasn't one in Europe about 85 years ago, because it was the same them people mentality then that was overlooked as someone just spouting off. THAT should be the slippery slope we are talking about, when people advertise their disdain and bias for a whole GROUP of people. Not just a person or small clique that you don't like or has done you wrong. But a whole GROUP of people just because they happen to be different then you then yes, they need to be called on that because that is exactly what happened in Europe not too long ago. People just sat there and said nothing and by doing that you give tacit approval of all kinds of things. Santayana-"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it". Now this situation maybe doesn't rise to that level but that is the point. When does it? When someone is kicked out? When someone is not allowed in? Or when someone is hurt or worse? I don't feel bad at all for that man . He made his bed and now he has to ly in it lumps and all!

And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of all those NBA players , including Magic, who knew what this man was but kept on coming. Why didn't they come forward earlier? Outside of Baron Davis no one ever said a word. Shame on all of them!

They used the mistress.  JMO

Shaq is part owner of the Sacramento Kings. He should be punished for his immature actions. As an owner he's a representative of the NBA just like Sterling.

I don't believe Sterling came up with the penalty. I believe there's a good chance Sterling sues the NBA. Especially if a quick, forced sale means he sells for less than market value.

You got it backwards....the mistress used them to get back at Sterling.

I didn't mean Sterling, I meant Silver, he was advised as to what to do.  That would include the League attorneys as well.

There is no way that Sterling will lose money on the sale, he will make plenty. I do not believe they can force him into a quick sale.

There was a rumor NBA players were going to boycott the playoffs if Silver didn't tell Sterling to sell. It would have been a horrible black eye for theNBA. Silver met with NBA counsel for three days deciding if they felt the move was legal.

Sterling won't lose money based on the original sale. . But a quick, forced sale could mean he has to sell for far below market value which is a loss even if it isn't from an accounting standpoint. If Sterling sues this could come down to a judge deciding if the NBA bylaws forcing a sale can be applied to a private conversation which by law is illegal to make public.

The way it will work is the league will orchestrate the sale. He has no ability to stop that under the NBA's ownership agreement. 

"The concept may be but the term 'Freedom of Speech' is specifically linked to First Amendment issues. ....  Ask any dictionary."

Sorry if this gets too pedantic, but freedom of speech existed before there was a Bill of Rights, it will exist long after we are all gone -- and it exists outside the U.S. as well.  The First Amendment clarified that the federal government could not infringe on a freedom that the authors felt already existed.  Their view was that there were rights endowed upon people by God, with or without any government existing.  So with all due respect, I'm afraid you have the origin and the outgrowth reversed.

Non-governmental infringements on speech can occur, and though I don't know the nature of the NBA's contracts among franchises and owners, I can only conclude that they include some commitment by the owners to a power in the commissioner to take action -- that is, to some extent they've waived their own rights in order to get economic benefits.  Though if it's like baseball's provision giving general powers "in the interests of baseball," it invites challenge.

But all that begs the question.  The NBA had to respond to marketplace pressures that existed because of the willingness of the general public to fly into a rage overnight.  Again, I find this guy odious, but if I wasted my time getting all worked up every time some idiot said something idiotic that would soon become my entire life and I would never make a dent in it.  But however odious this guy is, it doesn't justify the behavior of our countrymen that has come down.  There was even an initial period when there was some doubt cast on the authenticity of the recordings, and while it appears that was all a smoke screen, I find it disturbing that people were ready to hang this guy before they even knew the facts for certain.  In the final analysis, I find it less disturbing to learn that one 80-year-old clings to a bigotry that was more common in his youth (and that hopefully will go with him to his grave in the not-too-distant future) than to learn that tens of millions of Americans seem ready to grab their torches and pitchforks at a moment's notice.

And BTW, comparing this guy to Hitler is really over the top.  Hitler tortured and killed people on a massive scale.  He made war on his own nation and on several other nations.  I hardly see how this compares to one bigot mouthing off in a private setting where he was mostly trying to demonstrate his dominance over some bimbo who signed up to be his arm candy.

UCLA returning first payment of a 3 million dollar donation that was awarded to them for kidney research from Sterling.

I think that this sends a stronger message to him than the League banning him for life!

Now the guy on the local radio station was saying that they shouldn't do it, people calling in that this is why so many are up in arms about him, he showed the good side of himself while many knew the other side. 

So, basically, UCLA just paid his fine for him and sent him a $300k refund in the process all the while setting back kidney research by $3 mil. And this is a good thing that will "send him a message?"

They said that they claim that the funds will come from somewhere else. Not sure if that is true, but I can see why they would return the funds considering the circumstances.

How can you take money from someone who really doesn't think much of you in the first place?  It doesn't send a good message.

I'm pretty sure they would have kept the money if Sterling hadn't placed an ad in the LA Times which purported to be UCLA thanking Sterling.

Press release

The issue with the UCLA donation was it was going to get Sterling's name on a UCLA Medical building. If I were UCLA I would have offered to take the money but no name on the building. Turning down millions to save lives doesn't make sense if Sterling's name doesn't go on the building. But the UC system is uber liberal and Sterling is definitely not politically correct.

Sterling can't be fined enough to matter. I saw a graphic last night the 2.5M penalty Sterling received is the equivalent of an average income person being fined $51.

Wow, I didn't know that.  He was trying to make himself look good.

Good for them.

Sterling has a reputation of self promotion after making donations. True charity is one where the donation remains unknown or the receiving party gives thanks.

That makes him more of a dirt you know what. 

Was it bad timing or on purpose?

I truly understand why so many of the league owners really disliked him.

So, make it public that his name will not go on the building and that the college is more than willing to return his money if that is a deal breaker. Make Sterling be the bad guy. Heck, use some of that money to take out an ad denouncing his actions. No reason kidney research should suffer because of this bozo. As far as the money coming from somewhere else. That money had to come out of some other cause.

The biggest and most important issue to come out of this is you can't be too careful what you say in the privacy of your own home and lib crazed media to form its witch hunt and bring you down.

In the privacy of your own home with someone you shouldn't have trusted in the first place.  Did he think that the cars, the property, the jewelry, etc would keep her devoted...no way!

In this day and age, TMZ is just a phone call away!

I guess you're right. Those dang liberals at FoxNews, the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times are real commie-lovers aren't they?

I find the whole thing rather sad. 

It's just hard to find a trustworthy prostitute these day's.

I think the proper term is "side chick".  When you got all she got, she's a little more than your run of the mill pro.

I'm afraid you have the origin and the outgrowth reversed.

Not at all. If you want to discuss Diderot or, better yet, John Stewart Mill, who shared your concerns about mob rule, that's fine, but it doesn't negate my simple point about the legal meaning of the term freedom of speech, which is so often misused by those who are not nearly as well informed as you.  But let's have that discussion elsewhere. My interest in Donald Sterling was faint initially and has faded quickly, and this topic started pretty far from HS baseball and only went further with time.

I don't know if it's so sad. I think it brought to the public a conversation we've needed to have for decades. Many have always viewed "racism" as overt actions. We've long known that overt racist actions that discriminate by race are harmful to everyone. For example, note that the Brown v. Board decision opinied that segregation was harmful to whites as well as blacks. Brown v. Board, despite popular thought, was not about resources. Schools in the South, trying to head off this decision had already poured $$ into black schools in order to bring the level of education up to (and in some cases beyond) that enjoyed by whites. The hope was that they could hold onto "separate but equal." Brown was about attitudes. But, that got lost over the next almost six decades to where we have felt if you aren't demeaning someone publicly or denying them resources, it's all OK. Now, we're talking about racism again in terms of attitude and how certain attitudes are a blight on society in general and our nation specifically. I for one am happy to see the issue come up. Now if the NFL had the balls that the NBA has shown, we might not have the Washington Redskins. I mean, really, isn't that far more offensive than anything Sterling said?

You can pass all the laws you want, people will think what they want to think.   racism has been around since the begenning of time.  Each generation thinks they have the answers, you cannot fix what does not want to be fixed.... legislating morality has never worked

Let's please get over trying to say the whole society thinks the same way an 80 year old slumlord, nut case with an estranged wife and prostitute on the side thinks.

I agree with MidloDad and all that he has said.

PG - I have a question for you.  Are you saying what you think people want to hear or what you believe?  I am not sure you can have it both ways.  I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood your points. 

This issue highlights a paradox in our society.  If you believe in free speech, then what Donald Sterling has said should have no bearing on you.  If you believe that speech ought to be controlled to prevent harm to society, then the only way to control it "absolutely" is for everybody to say "nothing". 

Oliver Wendall Holmes - the famous Supreme Court Justice, tried to give an ad hoc example of what "may" constitute harmful speech to our society over a century ago.  He said "Surely, we all agree that if someone shouted "Fire" in a crowded theater," and that caused a stampede for the exits where someone was injured as a result therefrom, then that ought to constitute harmful speech.  To this date all these years later, there has not been one documented case where someone has said something that caused physical harm in this manner or otherwise. 

They (a bereaved parent) tried to sue Ossie Osborne for what they alleged was speech that led to a teen suicide.  Osborne's speech may have in fact led to the young man making such fateful decision.  However, it is not a simple cause and effect analysis even though the media simplistically paints it that way for ratings.  It may have been Osborne's speech, it may have been a mentally deranged young man making a deranged decision, or it may have been a combination of the two.  Regardless, if it was possible that it was simply a mentally deranged young man, how do you blame the "deranged" messenger when millions of other people heard the same song and were not led to the same conclusion i.e., suicide?  

Yes, people can hurt others feelings.  There is no way to control that imho without a corresponding paradoxical alternative .  You are stuck with the conundrum of having to choose between hurt feelings or not being able to speak at all because no matter how articulate and intelligent you are, someone will in "FACT" be offended by what you have to say.

Alec Baldwin has said more offensive things imho or at least as offensive as Sterling.  Why don't we ban him from his livelihood as well?    

CD,

Not sure exactly what you are referring to.  No matter what it would be something I believe.