NBA Owner Sterling

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

First, what the man said was wrong. I do not approve or agree with what he said. It was racism, plain and simple.

That said, is the lifetime ban from everything and the $2.5 million fine, along with the strong encouragement that the rest of the owners vote to take his ownership away appropriate or heavy handed?

aside from the ban, the money was pocket change and the Clippers and the NBA will NEED another owner. It's good business. Who wants to play for a white man that hates blacks?

He needs to go

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

I listened to the presser.

1) IMO, the commish had to give the max, or face chaos. He sounded very uncomfortable. Didn't see it, but his voice was not confident at all.

.

It's his first big shin dig

[n david]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

aside from the ban, the money was pocket change and the Clippers and the NBA will NEED another owner. It's good business. Who wants to play for a white man that hates blacks?

He needs to go

He's been voted either the absolute worst or one of the worst to play for, for a long time. The fact that he's racist has been known as well. Yet CP still signed to play with them, and Doc Rivers still signed to be the coach.

I agree, it's better for the Clippers to get rid of Sterling.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

He's been voted either the absolute worst or one of the worst to play for, for a long time. The fact that he's racist has been known as well. Yet CP still signed to play with them, and Doc Rivers still signed to be the coach.

I agree, it's better for the Clippers to get rid of Sterling.

This recent event can't be compared to the Past. It's blatant and what the players knew about the man we can only speculate

But NOW it's far far different. It's bad for the league. I didn't know about Sterling before this came out

[n david]

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation.

Source Link

Hopefully she's charged for breaking the law.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by n david

Source Link

Hopefully she's charged for breaking the law.

He's still bad for the league, the Clippers and LA

[n david]

Read on a couple websites a theory going around now is that Magic Johnson may have paid this hooker to set Sterling up, so Johnson and his company could buy the Clippers when Sterling was kicked out.

If this is true, Johnson and his group should be banned as well.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

Free speech only protects you from govt actions not your employer. Also how you are in your private is how you really are. But I guess its OK to be a closet racist. Just don't let it become public. This isn't the legal system here. We can't just deem the conversation emissable. He said what he said and we all heard it.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Free speech only protects you from govt actions not your employer.

So employers are okay to take our private phone conversations and use them to fire us? You're kidding, right? I believe what you mean is because Sterling had a contract with the NBA, and because in the contract there is likely language which governs how the owners are expected to represent their team...that is the small ledge the NBA is standing on to ban Sterling for life and try to force him to sell the team.

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

Also how you are in your private is how you really are. But I guess its OK to be a closet racist. Just don't let it become public.

I agree. It's not okay to be racist, in the closet or out. I've already spoken against what he said; however, I do believe that private conversations should be left private. It's ridiculous that not only do people not have any privacy because of big brother, but people like Sterling have to worry about being set up and recorded.

Originally Posted by Fionn mac Cumh

This isn't the legal system here. We can't just deem the conversation emissable. He said what he said and we all heard it.

Yes, but why did he say what he said? Did the Commish not hear what I and many others heard -- that this hooker was steering the conversation and baiting him into saying these things? Listen to the audio. He's not doing a Mel Gibson-style rant. He's answering questions and responding to what she's saying.

Again, what he said is despicable. But would he have said any of that to her on that phone call without her driving the conversation the way she did?

I don't think so.

[Fionn mac Cumh]

The sad truth is if you are rich and or famous you have no private life. You also have to be very PC about everything you say and do or risk an economic boycott. That's just how it is. I just don't think he was baited into having said what he said.