Re: Big Win for NBA
posted at 7/31/2014 2:18 AM EDT
In response to scubber's comment:
In response to DrBoogiebone's comment:
In response to scubber's comment:
Sterling is not being criminally prosecuted for saying racist things. His right to free speech is not being violated. He has the right to say what he said, but the NBA also has the right to elect to disassociate themselves from such owner and partner, their bylaw which are signed by all owners allows such action. You have the right to free speech but it does not absolve you from consequence of that speech. Freedom goes both ways for the person that makes the speech and the people who don't like what they hear.
Then what's "free" about it? It shouldn't be a "legal" issue. It should be a social one. Just like what happened with the Hornets owner that forced him to sell the team to N.O.
You are delusional if you think the free speech protection in the constitution means a complete protection from any and all repercussion from any other parties. It only protects you from any persecution from the state and the government, even that has its limit. Start writing email correspondences with shady characters from the middle east and you'll find out quickly what the limits are. It is a legal issue because Sterling agreed and signed the contract to be a part of the NBA. If he does not like it, he can always refuse to sign the agreement and there will be nothing that can hold him to higher standard as part of being an NBA owner.
I don't know what is your problem? This is not a free speech case, it is a legal issue involved business contract and agreement. Maybe it is fashionable to be a free speech alarmist but having ability to make free speech does not give someone the right to say things that amounts to breaking legal agreement and contract. Don't sign the contract or you can't have it both ways.
I guess I'm delusional then. scubber, the way I've always read the 1st Amendment is how it's actually written:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"
Now, in my dictionary, the word "abridging" means: shortened by condensing or rewriting. So I'm reading this as "Congress shall make no law abridging (rewriting) the freedom of speech". Have I been reading this wrong all these years? If I haven't, then all the personal-perspective breakdowns and limitation tags on the freedom of speech don't mean a damn to me. Never has. Even though they maybe/are the law. Or abuse of, I should say. The U.S. Supreme Court struggled to constitute what is free speech. So "they" decided to lay down "examples" (hence, rewriting IMO). And that's what we have to follow.
We all have our own rules/laws that we abide to. We're forced to abide our governmental laws in fear of harsh penalties. That doesn't mean we have to agree with them. I try to go through life treating people with respect and kindness. The same as I hope to be treated. Not to be labeled "delusional" and that I "have a problem" for having/sharing my own views/beliefs. After all, it was unpopular speech/views in Britain that ultimately led to the creation of the U.S.A.
Sorry for the rant. It's easy to get bent out of shape over something that is just wrong in my mind.
I agree with you. If he signed it, he should uphold it. However, I'd really like to see this NBA agreement myself. He didn't hurt the NBA IMO. The gold-digger did by submitting a recorded, private conversation to the media. Who in turn, made it public. She or TMZ should be held accountable, legally.
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. I probably am wrong. But if I am, that really sucks. The decline of western civilization. Where did it all begin?