"Feels like Thought Police" Topic

Donald Sterling's recorded statements are horrible and indefensable. He has shown himself to be a pretty rotten person for many years. Can't really say anything too positive about him, but……

he was speaking in the "privacy" of his own home.

Is this the "Thought Police" coming after him?

Mark Cuban, who I don't agree with much, did have a very good point when he said it was a slipery slope when you punish people for saying what they feel in their homes.http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-mark-cuban-donald-sterling-20140429,0,3329690.story?track=rss#axzz30ODIWtf9

Should people be punished because of their personal views, even as offensive as Sterlings, when expressed in thier homes?

Now, he is not being criminal charges, but punished through his business. The NBA is a private organization so I can also understand them wanting to get rid of him.

I wouldn't want to have someone like Sterling in my game club. Well, I wouldn't want someone who thinks like him, someone with that kind of money would have a well stocked game room, so that would be cool.

I see both sides of the arguement.

The fact is that heinous ideas are heinous no matter where you say them. And the assumption that it's okay to say something heinous to someone else, regardless of where you are, and that it won't possibly come back to hurt you, is both erroneous and foolish. The course of wisdom is to not express grossly objectionable ideas at all.
Sterling's not an idiot. He knows that society finds his sort of thinking repulsive in the extreme. He even knows that it's wrong, no matter how much he "feels" that it's right. In this day and age, he can't possibly not know otherwise. So if he's foolish enough to spout that garbage to a gold-digger girlfriend in the midst of a legal battle with his wife, then he practically deserves to have it come back and smack him in the head, just for being that mind-numbingly stupid.

I've thought about this a great deal. I, too, was considering that a private conversation should be private, but at the same time, let's face it, what he said wasn't even suitable for a private conversation. It was just flat-out evil. And he felt like he could spew it, against someone he clearly thinks of as inferior to him in every way, and quite possibly as little more than one of his possessions, demeaning her, her race and her friends, and thought there could be no consequences because he's rich and powerful. And he's found out differently.

So, no, you don't get to spew evil anywhere and expect to be immune from the consequences. From the law, yes, but not from the societal and personal consequences. They're gonna happen to you whether you like 'em or not. So unless you want to deal with that, the best choice is to keep your yap shut. Confidentiality you legally only get from your attorney and your doctors. It is granted by friends and spouses. From someone who is neither, best not expect it at all.

It's not much different that folks who are getting fired for what they put on their Facebook pages… or comment online in places they (wrongly) assume to be private.

It's not just rotten stuff like racism… it could be anything your employer doesn't like. Going home after work to complain about your 'stupid boss' and one of your kids catches it on his vidphone and dumps it on youtube… poof! unemployed!
Since it's not actual police/feds the legality of it seems a lot less defined.

It is a slippery slope… straight to the 'thought police'.

I think the idea that this was a private conversation is a seperate issue compared to what he said. The private conversation was made public, which was probably wrong on the party that released it publically, but IMHO for me this is similar to a situation in which someone's private conversation is "overheard." Just because you overhear something that someone else intended to be private does not make it wrong for you to take appropriate action based on that knowledge.

Damon.

Who gets to define 'appropriate action'?
I can 'overhear' you at lunch… at a bar… saying something nasty about your employer… is it 'appropriate' that I phone him up and tell him what I heard? Or would that only be 'appropriate' if you are a celebrity or someone in the public eye?

If this guy is the racist he seems to be I'd think it much better to fire him based on racist actions, vs. words in private.
We all say ignorant/insulting/mean things at times. Which of would be safe if we were hooked to a microphone 24/7?

When I was a kid, ratting people out for any infraction was something THEY did… you know, those evil folks over on the other side of the Iron Curtain.

I fully expect Jay Z to be ousted from his ownership of the nets after his repeated use of the N word in his songs.

Anyone associated with the NBA deserves whatever happens to them.

So much for reasonable expectation of privacy!

Anyone associated with the NBA deserves whatever happens to them.

Amen. I think one of the weirdest parts of this story is that, until less than 24 hours ago, the NBA's constitution and bylaws were confidential.

Anyhoo, this is a valuable business lesson about the nature of owning a FRANCHISE. You may be a billionaire, but as a franchisee you are still subject to the decisions of Corporate HQ. Other companies that are franchise based (McDonalds, for example) are not above forcing out owners for either legal or "moral" lapses.

Who gets to define 'appropriate action'?

The individual or organization does, based on their own moral compass or objectives. I thought that would be pretty obvious.

If you overhear me talking bad about my employer at a bar, decide to call and tell on me based on that, that is your decision to make. I am not saying it wouldn't be a breach of privacy; as I have stated that is a separate issue.

Damon.

Dan Lebatard said on ESPN Radio this afternoon that "there is nothing more American than a bunch of rich white guys telling another one that they don't want him in their club."

The individual or organization does, based on their own moral compass or objectives.

No comfort in that. Whistleblowers tend to only be appreciated when they're blowing downwind or sideways. 'Appropriate' just follows the tribal pecking order along the path of least resistance.
Then the powers that be can all stand around and pat themselves on the back for 'fixing' the problem.

Hmmmm, "Wonderland" is alive, well, and real.

People don't go to jail, get impeached, fined, or thrown out for lying to the nation, and world, but this guy gets fined and has people trying to confiscate his personal property for exercising free speech in private.

I don't agree with what he said, but which is worse?

Clearly, the "smoke and mirrors" distractions are working.

Privacy is a property right. It is a guarantee that third parties are barred from taking invasive means to find out what you do on your own property. That includes on your phone, since you pay rental on it, thus it counts as your property for the duration of your lease of the line.

If you have a conversation with someone else in a private location (owned or leased) and don't openly transmit it into a place of public accommodation, you have the right to keep it private from third parties.

The other person in the conversation can do whatever they want with that information, including making it public afterward. If you want to legally control information you release to others, get a non-disclosure agreement.

Don't know what Sterling said (watch sports, not sports news); don't care. If he said it to someone and they put it into the public, then it is fair game. Choose your friends wisely.

Not a big fan of sports regulatory corporations (which is what they are in fact), but even in the status in which I believe they should be (as opposed to the legal status we collectively give them), they have a right to make non-ex post facto decisions about membership and the benefits of such membership.

Choose your friends wisely

Seems like that will be a good motto for the 'information age'.
Not that it wasn't always a risk to speak your mind, but it was never so easy to rat out your friends… scream it from the rooftops.
Meanwhile, as said, the real crooks walk freely in plain sight.

Mel Gibson, anyone?

he was speaking in the "privacy" of his own home.

Apparently she was officially hired to be his "archivist," to record everything he said…

Question. Why isn't Jay Z under fire as a owner of the Nets, after using the N word 1,000 times on his last album?

:)

Is it because he's a minority owner? (no pun intended, but damn, not intending a pun here just makes it that much more of a pun) :)

I would suggest folks listen to the full TMZ clip on youtube. It's 9 and a half minutes long. Yes, some of the things he says are very objectionable, but to listen to the pundits (and read some of the posts here), you'd think it was far, far worse. It seems to start with an Instagram photo of the now ex-girlfriend "archivist" with Magic Johnston. His salient point is that he didn't want his girlfriend putting pictures on Instagram of herself with black guys and does not want her to bring them to the games.

To be honest, it sounds more like an old guy insecure about a girlfriend. The adultery and ridiculous age difference notwithstanding.

YouTube link

The ex-gf seems a real nasty piece of work too: link Maybe they deserve each other.

--
Tim

Don Sterling's 'crime' isn't that he holds his bigoted beliefs. It's that he got caught saying objectionably racist anti-African American and anti-Latino comments and the NBA finds a hot potato in its hands that it can't simply sweep under the rug.

It's simple bad luck really. Had his comments not been recorded and sold to TMZ he would still be fine. After all, he managed to keep them to himself since 1981 (when he bought the Clippers and moved them from San Diego). He even beat a lawsuit filed by Elgin Baylor.

For the record, I agree with the NBA's response. A person with his beliefs has no place in the NBA (or anywhere else in our times for that matter).

Very Well stated, 28mm Fanatik. My compliments.

To the OP,

The right of free speech does not mean that speech which results in actions is without consequence.

That being said, his speech an thoughts are not being "policed." What is being judged is the action that he took. He (or tried to) turn his thoughts and speech into action.

'Apparently she was officially hired to be his "archivist," to record everything he said…'

Now that part is just plain funny.

Ah, to be rich enough to be foolish at his age!

So, they are called "archivists" these days?

It was noted in several of the articles on this matter that Mr. Sterling's attitude towards minorities was not a secret. He apparently would not rent apartments to blacks 'because they smelled.'

The 'archivist' goes to a ball game with a black man then records the resulting argument over the situation (at least one article felt that the 'archivist' was goading Sterling). Recording is made public and Mr. Sterling is apparently going to be forced to sell his team.

Interestingly one of the favored candidates to buy the team is Magic Johnson – the man who was the subject of the racist tirade and has reportedly expressed a desire to own the team.

One other note – how many here have never gotten overwrought in an argument and made statements that were more extreme than their true feelings on a matter?

P.S. I noted with some amusement that a $2.5 USDM donation made by Mr. Sterling to UCLA for medical research was being returned because of his racism. Seems a bit overly self-righteous to me. Based on that attitude though, I haven't seen any of the players quit the team and send back their paychecks.

"Based on that attitude though, I haven't seen any of the players quit the team and send back their paychecks."

Of course, if a player did quit the team he would be sued all the way to next Tuesday for breach of contract, so I don't blame any of those guys one bit. Comparing that to a University giving back a donation is utterly apples and oranges.

I noted with some amusement that a $2.5 USD M donation made by Mr. Sterling to UCLA for medical research was being returned because of his racism. Seems a bit overly self-righteous to me.

UCLA is refunding Sterling his donations because if they didn't it would reflect very badly on their part to the public.

Ironically, the NAACP previously gave an award to Mr. Sterling in 2009 for his donations and was planning to give him another one this month, but due to the, uh, "unfortunate development" had to issue a statement to dissociate from him and return his donation.

It's not so much a matter of being self-righteous but PR damage control and 'saving face' by distancing themselves from Mr. Sterling now that his blatant racism has come to light.

Based on that attitude though, I haven't seen any of the players quit the team and send back their paychecks.

Though Clippers coach Doc Rivers and many players have said that they will not return next season if Mr. Sterling is allowed to remain owner. The Clippers are in the middle of a first-round playoff series vs. Golden State and it would not be good for the NBA if the Clippers roll over and let the Warriors win the seven-game series without putting up a fight.

One other note – how many here have never gotten overwrought in an argument and made statements that were more extreme than their true feelings on a matter?

There's a difference between saying something one doesn't mean and saying something one does mean. Given your other points about Mr. Sterling, I'd surmise that his words do reflect his "true feelings on the matter." So no pass from me.

In any case, I agree that this is not the case of "thought police." It's the case of a societal and business response that are perfectly natural consequences of disgusting behavior. It ain't policing, it's karma.

But I will also agree that the NBA and the sports world in general are complete hypocrites on this sort of thing. If they kicked out all the obnoxious jerks in the professional sports world, there'd be a lot of empty arenas and empty owner's boxes.

'Ah, to be rich enough to be foolish at his age!
So, they are called "archivists" these days?'

I am guessing that an 'archivist' is tax deductible, whereas escort is not. If so, he is doing the same to the US taxpayer as he was to her. Though perhaps it is a feature and not a bug. He is, after all, being 'a job creator.'

It was noted in several of the articles on this matter that Mr. Sterling's attitude towards minorities was not a secret. He apparently would not rent apartments to blacks 'because they smelled.'

Yeah, from what I've read no one around him was all that surprised by his comments. So the big deal is just that they've been made public.

One other note – how many here have never gotten overwrought in an argument and made statements that were more extreme than their true feelings on a matter?

Not even a need for the 'overwrought' element… plenty of things have come out of my mouth… crazy opinions and prejudices and just plain stupidity.
Follow anyone and record what they say and I bet you'd find the same.

His attitudes were well known enough that LeBron James crossed the team off his "take my talents to…" list.

The Orlando Magic owner is next.