If you were Adam Silver, what would you do with Donald Sterling?
- Thread starter LSN80
- Start date
I can't believe some people are actually upset that this racist sleazebag is getting his comeuppance. This isn't a freedom of speech issue because no rights are being taken away or withheld from Sterling. I'm sorry but when you run a basketball business in the NBA, which, let's face it, is predominantly African-American, you don't get any slack on the racism front. This is karma coming back to bite Sterling in the ass, and I had a smile when reading the news of his punishment.
I don't think many intelligent people are citing freedom of speech. What we're saying is forcible removal of legally owned property/entity based solely upon the fact other people don't like what you say in private conversations doesn't seem right.
So if you're a priest/minister/pastor in a Christian church and you preach tolerance towards homosexuals, it's okay for you to be fired?
As I've said, my heart won't weep for Sterling. Not in the least. I'm not fighting for his cause, I'm saying the principle behind it is unfair. "If we don't like what you say, we'll forcibly take from you what you own." There's something quite wrong with that.
But isn't the counter more concerning, that the rich billionaire is ruined reproach for his actions?
Because without the lifetime ban, that's essentially what you're saying. And not for nothing, but I'd have a hard time explaining to players why their bad behavior can result in punishment (and potentially losing their job), but that the billionaire is beyond reproach.
Because without the lifetime ban, that's essentially what you're saying. And not for nothing, but I'd have a hard time explaining to players why their bad behavior can result in punishment (and potentially losing their job), but that the billionaire is beyond reproach.
No, allowing people to have private thoughts and private conversations is not worse than taking livelihoods for said thoughts.
Name me the last time an athlete used a homophobic slur and was banned for life. I'll wait.
It isn't private now... It's out there, so stop acting like this is private. It's pretty darn public, and now it's out there.
Now, you may not agree with how it was brought to the public, and nor do I, but it's in the public eye now. And it isn't as though we don't know what this person has said before; we have court documentation of this man's words (which frankly, offend me more than what he said on tape). His views on race are far from private at this point.
Richie Incognito
He isn't banned for life
I'll just save you the trouble here and now; we both know Incognito is never playing another down of NFL football. I may very well be wrong on that... But I doubt it.
But it was private when it was made.
But it was private. You're arguing in circles.
When Sterling made the comment, it was made in private. It was a private thought/conversation. We're now punishing for private thoughts/conversations which hold no harm to anyone at all.
It is in the public eye, but the statement was not made in the public eye. It was made privately. We're now punishing for private statements.
But he's not being punished for that, he's being punished for what was leaked on tape.
Richie Incognito was actively bullying a teammate, which not only directly affected another person, it also affected the team. It's not even close to the same situation, there was most definitely a victim.Richie Incognito
I'll just save you the trouble here and now; we both know Incognito is never playing another down of NFL football. I may very well be wrong on that... But I doubt it.
Finally, like you said, Incognito has not been banned for life. And, even if he is de facto banned, it would be far more for the bullying than for his opinion. Again, different situation.
TWJC: The Beginning
Royal Rumble Winner
Slyfox
1) It doesn't matter if it was private. It DID get out and it damages the brand. As a franchise owner, Sterling signed up knowing he was a public figure and had certain standards to uphold to. He didn't. He fucked up. He got punished.
2) He owns the franchise but, again, it's a part of the NBA. He has to adhere to certain standards of conduct. He knew going in that he could be overthrown. It's not like he owns a home and someone kicked him out of that. The NBA has every right to do what they're doing.
3) Pastors have been fired for preaching homosexual tolerance....I disagree with that stance, but it's their right.
4) I don't like the gold digging twat who recorded him. She shouldn't be glorified at all. Fact is though, Sterling was recorded whether he wanted to be or not and said something that was leaked. The NBA can't make people unthink it and untarnish the brand. So he had to be punished. There is a simple fix: don't be an asshole.
1) It doesn't matter if it was private. It DID get out and it damages the brand. As a franchise owner, Sterling signed up knowing he was a public figure and had certain standards to uphold to. He didn't. He fucked up. He got punished.
2) He owns the franchise but, again, it's a part of the NBA. He has to adhere to certain standards of conduct. He knew going in that he could be overthrown. It's not like he owns a home and someone kicked him out of that. The NBA has every right to do what they're doing.
3) Pastors have been fired for preaching homosexual tolerance....I disagree with that stance, but it's their right.
4) I don't like the gold digging twat who recorded him. She shouldn't be glorified at all. Fact is though, Sterling was recorded whether he wanted to be or not and said something that was leaked. The NBA can't make people unthink it and untarnish the brand. So he had to be punished. There is a simple fix: don't be an asshole.
It absolutely does matter. It matters because the NBA isn't punishing him for a public position. It's not punishing him for a method of business. It's not punishing him for something he said to the media. The NBA is punishing Sterling for something he said in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's punishing him for an opinion, an opinion expressed privately.
The Clippers brand. Which Sterling owns (for now).
Every right? Sure. Does it make it right? Absolutely not.
An employer has the right to fire an employee who preaches tolerance towards homosexuals...doesn't mean it's right.
I'm not disputing it's their right, I'm disputing whether it is/should be acceptable.
Why do you disagree with firing a pastor for his personal beliefs but you don't seem to have a problem with "firing" Sterling for his?
Fire Marshall Bill
Let me show ya somethin!!!
Quick question regarding his punishment/potential forced buyout: Being that he's the owner, does he get to pick his selling price? I mean, if he really wanted to keep the team, he could put an outrageous asking price that absolutely no one would pay. I have a feeling there's rules against that, but that's why I'm asking.
Paul Bunyan's Axe
Occasional Pre-Show
If we were all judged by what we did/said/thought in private, I think a lot of people would come off as bad or worse than Sterling has.
TWJC: The Beginning
Royal Rumble Winner
Most of us aren't well known public figures though. Once your reputation is tainted it DOES NOT MATTER. It sucks, but that's what many of you aren't getting. If I get drunk at home and say sexist things to someone I'm having over. Then it turns out they work for a company I'm trying to sell to. Then she spreads the word that I'm a misogynistic pig. My reputation is tainted and I'm being punished. Maybe my company finds out and they see that it's bad for them to be associated with me and they terminate me. That'd be fine by me. It's business.
Slyfox, is does not matter where it was said. It sucks that it was in private, and his gold digger gf should be sued by him. However, from the NBA's standpoint, no it doesn't matter. It's bad business for them to be associated with him.
It damages the whole brand. Not just the Clippers. The Clippers are a part of the NBA. It's all one entity. The NBA increased brand goodwill with their decision. Their decision made smart business sense.
So you agree that they have a right to take action. Would I agree with someone getting fired over preaching homosexual tolerance? That depends on the situation. If they're being overly political for no reason, then yea I'm find with that. I'm extremely liberal, but I keep my opinions to myself at work. If I become obnoxiously political and it's stirring up shit at work, then I should be terminated.
Lastly Slyfox, I disagree with firing a pastor as in I wouldn't do it, I don't think it's wrong though. They have that right. Personally, if my company fires me because I support marriage equality, I don't want to work for that company anyways. Just like the NBA had the right to not associate their brand with Sterling. Let's pretend for a second, that Sterling was caught saying positive things about marriage equality and the NBA ousted him. I would think the NBA was ass backwards pieces of shit, but they have that right to get rid of him. I wouldn't support the NBA. However, the consensus of people is that Sterling is a piece of shit. It's good business for the NBA to cut him off.
Yes it does. It's incredibly important.
We all should be entitled to our private thoughts and feelings. The idea of having your business taken from you because of how you feel is something which should make every American's skin crawl a little. As I said, if this was a public position Sterling had taken, then that was his fault for being stupid. But Sterling wasn't really being stupid here, he was just saying something he believes in private and others find offensive.
They could have done most of the same building goodwill, without threatening to take his business. Suspend him for a year or two. Tell him he can't come to games anymore. Those are fine and after a few months, no one would care anymore. But this is his business, and it's (likely) being taken from him because of his personal thoughts.
I agree that, by the by-laws of the NBA, they probably have the authority to take action (we'll assume, since they wouldn't have taken this step if they didn't).
But what if a gay couple came up to the pastor in distress and the pastor told them God loves them and their love is pure?
Because that's essentially the same level of transgression here.
You don't think it's wrong to be discriminated against because of your thoughts and feelings? How about for your religion? Should you be discriminated against because of your religion? After all, religion is little more than thoughts and feelings as well.
But it's still ethically wrong to take someone's property from them by force for something said in private.
One Punch Doug Crashin
I AM INVINSIBLE!
Should the tapes have been release? Probably not. But, the tapes were released. Does Sterling have an expectation of privacy? Nope. You're a public figure. You're GOING to be recorded. Plus, there's a report going around that Sterling asked to be recorded because he's "forgetful'. The fact remains though, Adam Silver did what he could under the NBA constitution/CBA. Should Sterling remain with the NBA after he made those comments? That's a resounding N.O!
Edit: It's also ethically wrong to fire someone who's tolerant of homosexuality
Edit: It's also ethically wrong to fire someone who's tolerant of homosexuality
TWJC: The Beginning
Royal Rumble Winner
Slyfox, it does NOT matter if it was private or not because it STILL got out. The NBA can't make people unhear it. It costs them goodwill with the public. Sucks for Sterling. I whole heartedly agree with you that he shouldn't have been recorded. Fact remains that he was, he said something awful, it got out, and hurt the NBA's brand. To fix it, they cut ties with him.
"What if a gay couple...." Doesn't matter. The church has the right to fire a preacher if they feel he is hurting their brand. I disagree with their opinion, but they have that right; and that preacher should probably find a better church.
There are laws protecting me to being fired because of my religion (or lack of). Yes, religion is ultimately a collection of thoughts. That's not what you get fired for though. You get fired for saying/doing messed up things. How many people defended Phil Robertson when A&E suspended him for saying stupid things in the name of his religion? He didn't get suspended for being a christian, he got suspended for saying stupid things. People know what is and is not acceptable at work. If they choose to go against that, then they face consequences.
Is it unethical? Remember, this is a franchise. It's not like he's an independent company. For his company to exist, he needs 29 others to compete in and a league to set the schedule and rules. He signed on knowing there are consequences if you bring irreparable social feelings toward your brand. Now, if he were say, the owner of a roofing company and he said this, then no, no one would have a right to oust him.
Ultimately, Slyfox, I agree with your general premise. What you need to realize is, what makes this situation different:
1. He's a public figure. In other words, he has no private life. Someone is always watching you.
2. He owns a franchise. It's not independent. The success of the Clippers largely depends on the NBA and having opponents. To join their association, he agreed to certain standards to uphold. He knew he'd become a more prominent public figure, he knew he had standards of conduct to uphold. He also knew if he damaged the brand, he could be punished. Imagine if you own a McDonalds. You can't do whatever you want with it. There are things you have to do as a franchise owner. If they say that every franchise has to upgrade kitchen equipment by the end of 2015, then you have to upgrade kitchen equipment.
"What if a gay couple...." Doesn't matter. The church has the right to fire a preacher if they feel he is hurting their brand. I disagree with their opinion, but they have that right; and that preacher should probably find a better church.
There are laws protecting me to being fired because of my religion (or lack of). Yes, religion is ultimately a collection of thoughts. That's not what you get fired for though. You get fired for saying/doing messed up things. How many people defended Phil Robertson when A&E suspended him for saying stupid things in the name of his religion? He didn't get suspended for being a christian, he got suspended for saying stupid things. People know what is and is not acceptable at work. If they choose to go against that, then they face consequences.
Is it unethical? Remember, this is a franchise. It's not like he's an independent company. For his company to exist, he needs 29 others to compete in and a league to set the schedule and rules. He signed on knowing there are consequences if you bring irreparable social feelings toward your brand. Now, if he were say, the owner of a roofing company and he said this, then no, no one would have a right to oust him.
Ultimately, Slyfox, I agree with your general premise. What you need to realize is, what makes this situation different:
1. He's a public figure. In other words, he has no private life. Someone is always watching you.
2. He owns a franchise. It's not independent. The success of the Clippers largely depends on the NBA and having opponents. To join their association, he agreed to certain standards to uphold. He knew he'd become a more prominent public figure, he knew he had standards of conduct to uphold. He also knew if he damaged the brand, he could be punished. Imagine if you own a McDonalds. You can't do whatever you want with it. There are things you have to do as a franchise owner. If they say that every franchise has to upgrade kitchen equipment by the end of 2015, then you have to upgrade kitchen equipment.
Slyfox, I agree with your premise.
It is scary that one could have their own business taken away for their private thoughts and feelings, however, once it got out to the public, it was no longer private. Should he have been recorded and should the conversation have been released? That's a discussion for another day and that's between him and the person that released the conversation. As has been said by others, he joined the NBA and agreed to their by-laws and such as an owner. So once the conversation became public and became detrimental to the brand and the image of the NBA, Adam Silver had the right to act. There's a reason private thoughts and feelings should remain private. You say it was a private conversation and you're right, however, what if I went up to my boss at work and had a private conversation with him where I explained that I hate ******s, jews, homos, and spicks? Should he fire me or allow me to continue working? I mean, our conversation was private after all. Once you convey your feelings and thoughts to someone, they are no longer private.
It is scary that one could have their own business taken away for their private thoughts and feelings, however, once it got out to the public, it was no longer private. Should he have been recorded and should the conversation have been released? That's a discussion for another day and that's between him and the person that released the conversation. As has been said by others, he joined the NBA and agreed to their by-laws and such as an owner. So once the conversation became public and became detrimental to the brand and the image of the NBA, Adam Silver had the right to act. There's a reason private thoughts and feelings should remain private. You say it was a private conversation and you're right, however, what if I went up to my boss at work and had a private conversation with him where I explained that I hate ******s, jews, homos, and spicks? Should he fire me or allow me to continue working? I mean, our conversation was private after all. Once you convey your feelings and thoughts to someone, they are no longer private.
AndThat'sTheBottomLine
I am the
It's also illegal in California to record someone without their knowledge or consent. That's what she did so she should be sued for it. The League using statements ILLEGALLY obtained is wrong. Although I do agree with banning him for life, taking away his business for his PRIVATE thoughts are wrong and sets up for a very dangerous snowball effect. They can try and persuade him to sell but it is wrong to force a man to sell or strip him of his possessions just because of his beliefs no matter how appalling they may be. Let's put anyone here in the same position and see how they feel about it then.
A11oftheLights
Getting Noticed By Management
I'm sorry but some of you seem to be forgetting something, in the incredibly soft society that my generation insists on wanting anyone and everyone sues someone at the drop of a hat. Especially in america. As a result people are forced into entering much more technical contracts. This is why Sterling can lose his license, he has to agree to all these terms the nba sets if he wants to be an owner. One of which i'm sure (as the nba would have a decent legal department) will deal with bringing the league into disrepute.
