LA Clippers Owner Donald Sterling's Racist Rant Caught On Tape

[First]

The first amendment? Sterling was exercising his freedom of speech.

Holy shit you're clueless. The 1st Amendment has nothing to do with censoring the free speech of a member of a private organization, which is exactly what this was. It talks about the relationship between the gov't and private citizens vis-à-vis free speech.

Also, as far as the tape, I haven't seen any proof Sterling acknowledges it was recorded and released with consent. You would think, if he had agreed to be taped, he'd have said it, you know, on the tape. But, of course, we didn't get the entire tape. Only a 15 minutes segment edited out to make him look bad. The women then claimed she took portions and gave them to a friend for "safe keeping" who then released them. Who does that? People with some sort of agenda.

Yikes, you're one clueless mother****er, lol. The turd deserved to be ousted, and if you want to get Constitutional, he quite clearly violated the 1968 Civil Rights Act in his real estate dealings. Multiple times.

 

[waggy]

Wow. And now doctors are in on the act, releasing phone messages from Mr. Sterling without consent (I assume) and violating client/patient confidentiality. I hope these people realize what comes around goes around.

Audio: Donald Sterling leaves angry voicemails for doctors
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...-voicemail-recordings-20140619-htmlstory.html

hmm doctors releasing them? that can be bad for the doctors.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The first amendment? Sterling was exercising his freedom of speech.

Also, as far as the tape, I haven't seen any proof Sterling acknowledges it was recorded and released with consent. You would think, if he had agreed to be taped, he'd have said it, you know, on the tape. But, of course, we didn't get the entire tape. Only a 15 minutes segment edited out to make him look bad. The women then claimed she took portions and gave them to a friend for "safe keeping" who then released them. Who does that? People with some sort of agenda.

"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" has what to do with this situation?

As for the tape itself. Show me a confirmed statement where Stirling claims he didn't know he was being taped.

 

[Attic]

"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" has what to do with this situation?

As for the tape itself. Show me a confirmed statement where Stirling claims he didn't know he was being taped.

From a CNN article,

Sterling blamed Stiviano for "baiting" him into saying the racist remarks on the recordings -- comments he said he had no idea were being recorded. But he said he is not sure why she did it, because she didn't blackmail him. In fact, he believes she is a "good person."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/donald-sterling-interview/

Not defending anything Sterling said, but he was clearly baited, and given where the tapes went it reasons to stand it was intentional baiting and done without Sterlings knowledge.

It looks and smells like a baiting and hidden recording. Given the result of the tapes the intent and motive is quite clear as well.

Only issue is Sterling comes off as a sociopath or an incredibly aloof dimwitted asshole conniving fuck. So it is kind of difficult to trust anything he says about this.

But I believe if Sterling was made aware of the recording it would have been recorded as well and released with the tapes. It's a significant part of the story and critical to law in California, this is in California where this two party consent.

Basically, logic backs up Sterling's assertion that he didn't know he was being recorded because were he made aware of it there would have been recorded proof.


To turn it around. Imagine being manipulated in conversation and dialogue to a place where you are uncomfortable and react poorly or out of character and then have portions of your conversation edited to make you sound like something you're not.

Sterling's history is separate to this, the idea of hidden recordings taking place under the circumstances in Sterling's case, and then the recordings being used to harm an individual should send off warning signals to anyone.

Is the League better of without Sterling?, clearly. I don't think the ends justify the means, they rarely do.