Sterling - NBA lifetime ban

[Dexman PE PMP]

Despite all of the claims that the NBA is a "private" company and shouldn't be subject to public critisizm, the amount of tax breaks & public funding is through the roof. Show me a stadium/arena that wasn't at least partially subsidized with public funds. I know every one in CO uses public funding...

 

[engineergurl]

Despite all of the claims that the NBA is a "private" company and shouldn't be subject to public critisizm, the amount of tax breaks & public funding is through the roof. Show me a stadium/arena that wasn't at least partially subsidized with public funds. I know every one in CO uses public funding...

excellent point... you are thinking like a lawyer

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

^^^ I'm in the middle of a legal dispute so I've been reading a ton of legal documents lately...

 

[snickerd3]

isn't it illegal to record someone without their knowledge in Cali?

 

[YMZ PE]

Its his right to be racist and own whatever he can afford.

It is of the general opinion that it is not morally correct to be racist, as defined by the most vocal people, so therefore the concept is that forming that opinion/sentiment/attitude and expressing it as such is no longer a right.

But it's still okay for me to call you guys honkies, correct?

 

[MetsFan]

Wow, I guess a lot of you haven't experienced any kind of discrimination. Imagine being told you only got into that great school because you're a minority. Or having to put up with a boss who says things like, oh, well, what if there's a stupid Mexican worker that doesn't know how to operate that machinery... oh your wife's Mexican? Well then how about the stupid Chinese worker that doesn't know what they're doing... oh you're part Chinese... Or all those people from the Bronx are just a waste of space... oh, you're from the Bronx, well, don't worry, you're nothing like them.

I can totally relate to all the people working for the Clippers and how they must have felt when they heard the tape.

 

[mudpuppy]

Agree but that doesn't apply to whatever private contract he signed when he purchased the team, just like many NFL players have similar clauses in their contracts they can be fined for saying dumb things... Free speech is freedom from the government putting you in jail for speaking your mind (aka North Korea)

This. This has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech is about the government. If you're part of a private partnership and one of your partners starts doing/saying things that hurt your business, you have every right to force out that partner. Happens all the time for various reasons, this time just happens to be for racism. And that's just how it should be--the other partners shouldn't have to put up with this guy's BS.

 

[engineergurl]

Its his right to be racist and own whatever he can afford.

It is of the general opinion that it is not morally correct to be racist, as defined by the most vocal people, so therefore the concept is that forming that opinion/sentiment/attitude and expressing it as such is no longer a right.

But it's still okay for me to call you guys honkies, correct?

I love you

 

[goodal]

Ok, lets delve a little deeper. All this happened because someone recorded (maybe illegally) a private conversation and one guy said something that alot of people don't agree with. Now he may lose his lively hood because of it. Put aside the fact that hes a billionaire and that hes a slime ball for the moment. What happens when another private citizen, like me, says something that offends someone, lets say its homophobic, in a private conversation and its broadcast to the public? Should I lose my lively hood because of my opinion? Does anyone else see where this leads? We are going down the road of not being able to have a job, or own things, because of your personal, legal opinions. This is not good. This whole thing has stunk to me from the beginning and now I know why. Sure hes a jerk, but we are opening ourselves up to censorship like we have never seen if people can't talk freely among themselves without fear of retribution.

And yes you can call me a ******. Its actually cracks me up a little.

 

[YMZ PE]

Or maybe only speak your mind around people you trust instead of your gold-digging mistress.

 

[Road Guy]

they played the full audio on CNN last night, she went on to say "I wish I could change the color of my skin for you baby"

F'n disgusting....

so she gets what out of this deal? book deal or something? her cash cow has ben cut off I imagine?

 

[mudpuppy]

Ok, lets delve a little deeper. All this happened because someone recorded (maybe illegally) a private conversation and one guy said something that alot of people don't agree with. Now he may lose his lively hood because of it. Put aside the fact that hes a billionaire and that hes a slime ball for the moment. What happens when another private citizen, like me, says something that offends someone, lets say its homophobic, in a private conversation and its broadcast to the public? Should I lose my lively hood because of my opinion?

Yep, absolutely you should. But this isn't anything new, companies have fired people for this kind of stuff for a long time. You make the company look bad, you get fired. Bottom line is, don't be an *****. If you're racist, keep these comments to yourself, especially if you have billions to protect. It's just good business sense.

Do you think if someone who works at Fox News got caught saying "I love jihadists!" they wouldn't get fired?

Was it wrong for this guy's girlfriend to record the conversation? Probably, but his cause of action is against her--he shouldn't get a pass just because he thought no one would find out what he really thinks.

 

[goodal]

I'm gonna have to disagree there. He was not on company time or saying anything in public. In fact the situation he was in is where he expected the most amount of privacy. f what you say is true, noone can have or express any idea or feeling that may be offensive to anyone, ever. That's not the America I want to live in.

 

[YMZ PE]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that because this particular person was punished due to a breach of privacy, it opens the door to all of us having our careers jeopardized for expressing our personal views.

First of all, he was an ***** for saying he doesn't like black people TO A BLACK PERSON. Would you honestly have a private discussion with a gay person about your opposition to gay marriage and NOT expect them to be offended and maybe complain to other people? It's common sense that you can't say anything to anybody and not expect some sort of social repercussion.

Second, the views he expressed were derogatory toward not only the person he said them to, but to millions of the NBA's employees and fan base. Basically biting the hands that feed (or do other things to) him. Of course the NBA had no choice but to protect their interests by punishing him when his views were in the public eye. I really doubt they would be pressuring him to sell the team if he had offended any other race.

 

[goodal]

You're right. Your's and my jobs aren't in jeopardy today, but what about the precedent this is setting? Its just a little scary for us conspiracy theorist/tea party people out here, that's all.

 

[engineergurl]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that because this particular person was punished due to a breach of privacy, it opens the door to all of us having our careers jeopardized for expressing our personal views.

First of all, he was an ***** for saying he doesn't like black people TO A BLACK PERSON. Would you honestly have a private discussion with a gay person about your opposition to gay marriage and NOT expect them to be offended and maybe complain to other people? It's common sense that you can't say anything to anybody and not expect some sort of social repercussion.

Second, the views he expressed were derogatory toward not only the person he said them to, but to millions of the NBA's employees and fan base. Basically biting the hands that feed (or do other things to) him. Of course the NBA had no choice but to protect their interests by punishing him when his views were in the public eye. I really doubt they would be pressuring him to sell the team if he had offended any other race.

A social repercussion would have been if the fans boycotted, the players refused to play, the other teams players, coaches and owners refused to participate in games with him. That is society passing judgement and choosing actions based on their own individual opinions. For the association to force him to sell the team, that is a business repercussion and treading into legal matters that very well probably don't needed to be.

This opens the door wide and clear for everyone, even if they are unintentionally offending someone. Let's say Joe Engineer is on an internet fourm and someone from work figures out who he is, but doesn't mention it to him. He participates in a thread and makes a comment that isn't particularly offensive in the context that it was said, but isolated very offensive. That someone from work jokes back, but lets the company know about the offensive post, they do their digging and find out that yes Joe Engineer did post the offensive post and BAM he's fired. What's the difference between that scenario and the Sterling/NBA scenario?

What I think is probably going to happen...

They are going to force him to sell... he will refuse to sell and sue them... he'll loose the court case and then refuse to sell for less than what he wants... they will tell him the price is too high... he will say no it's not, you told me to sell the team and I am selling the team it's not my fault no one wants to buy it... they will sue him for breaching some part of some contract they probably made him sign.... eventually, he'll claim the team is bankrupt and that opens up a new world of laws that will come into play... the players will get screwed because the NBA will get their money, he'll get his money, and there won't be anymore money left for them.

 

[YMZ PE]

This opens the door wide and clear for everyone, even if they are unintentionally offending someone. Let's say Joe Engineer is on an internet fourm and someone from work figures out who he is, but doesn't mention it to him. He participates in a thread and makes a comment that isn't particularly offensive in the context that it was said, but isolated very offensive. That someone from work jokes back, but lets the company know about the offensive post, they do their digging and find out that yes Joe Engineer did post the offensive post and BAM he's fired. What's the difference between that scenario and the Sterling/NBA scenario?

I disagree that a precedent is being set; there's nothing currently prohibiting what you're describing from happening. The door was open wide and clear long before this incident.

I'm more opposed to the government prohibiting businesses from terminating their contracts when they consider it to be in their best financial interest.

 

[FLBuff PE]

What would you do if an engineer in your firm (if you were the president) was secretly taped/video recorded as a member of the KKK? What if your client base started drying up because of this? Would you fire the engineer, or would you keep the engineer, because their beliefs are their private business?

 

[rktman]

My 2 cents,

1) The old man is paying for screwing around with someone so immature (and crazy).

2) The old man owns a team who is subject to NBA rules/ethics. His private views became public (without his consent), and the NBA is subject to public opinion. His now public personal views are (realistically) subject to the current public lynching/opinion so the NBA had to denounce him for PR sake. In a sense the NBA is his Boss because he owns the team that is a member.

3) We all say stupid things in a fight. The old man felt threatened that his young hottie was hanging around other young men that were not his race, and he chose to express it in a poor manor. Not my business nor anyone else's but the young hottie is trying to milk it for her 5 seconds of fame, pretty disgusting.

4) I don't agree with many of the viewpoints here about firing someone based on personal beliefs. The arrogant and proud man says that his beliefs are correct and those that don't agree should be stoned (fired). In the end a proud man will end up defending the wrong viewpoint just to maintain that he is correct (this is what the old man did that got him into so much trouble to begin with).

 

[engineergurl]

I'm more opposed to the government prohibiting businesses from terminating their contracts when they consider it to be in their best financial interest.

Perhaps I'm out of the loop on this because I will admit I'm confused by this statement.

I also want to ask, are we considering each individual team as the owners business that participates in an association or are we looking at this as that the team is owned by the NBA and he just funds it and receives the profits because there is a HUGE difference. IF the team is OWNED by the NBA and Sterling is merely an investor, cash out his shares and be rid of him in the best interest of your company, yes I get it. If the team is owned by Sterling and he is part of an association, well in my eyes then you can't force him to sell the team because he owns it. You can ban him from the association but which will probably eventually lead to him selling the team, but that is totally different.

What would you do if an engineer in your firm (if you were the president) was secretly taped/video recorded as a member of the KKK? What if your client base started drying up because of this? Would you fire the engineer, or would you keep the engineer, because their beliefs are their private business?

In all honesty, the engineer probably would have suffered dire social repercussions rendering him incompetent, maimed and possibly dead prior to his actions impacting business. A few months ago, a kid got shot and killed over a pair of sneakers here.

But really, I would seriously struggle with this, I'm not going to lie. And while the intelligent business person in me would probably do what ever was best for the business and the livelihoods of the other people, I think I would hold a lot of anger about it.