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

[emperus]

Of course you don't, and that's the point. You're basically being hypocritical here.

You don't want some of your views known, but you're OK with people recording others' views and leading a public execution. :whiste:

You're not being consistent.

This is what I wrote. You seemed to have not read the whole thing.

Originally Posted by emperus
Like I said, I know who I am and am privately who I am in public. Some of my views, I wouldn't want to be publically known, so I am very careful who I share those with (the few friends I trust implicitly), but if it got out, what would I say. It is what I think.

 

[nehalem256]

What you are arguing is somebody writing a paper, deciding the language they used isn't clear enough so going to edit that paper. If you think that represents someone's views. You are really lost.

Sterling comments were 15 minutes long as recorded. He never claimed his comments were taken out of comments and never claimed he was mis- represented by his comments. Your arguing he shouldn't be responsible for comments he believes in just because they were made in private.

Again. figure out what point you are trying to make or trying to argue.

Like I said, I know who I am and am privately who I am in public. Some of my views, I wouldn't want to be publically known, so I am very careful who I share those with (the few friends I trust implicitly), but if it got out, what would I say. It is what I think.

So in other words thought crime.

 

[emperus]

So do we think Sterling knew he was being recorded? The lawyer for the woman is saying Sterling knew he was recorded.

I think that given the length of the recording, and how it was used, that were Sterling made aware and in agreement with the recrording that this would have been.... recorded. And in that we'd already have audio of Sterling being made aware he was being recorded.

I don't see any leeway to see the lawyer as anything other than a flat out liar here.

I'd say 100% Sterling did not know he was being recorded, because if he did, we'd have proof rather than the lying lips of some lawyer.

Any good reasons for not recording the part where you make someone aware that they will be recorded other than intending for that someone to not be made aware that they are being recorded?

I don't know. But the lawyer says the tape is longer I think.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is what I wrote. You seemed to have not read the whole thing.

I did, and that didn't change anything.

In short, you're saying that you don't want some of your views to get out, yet, you'd deal with the consequences if they did.

This doesn't change the fact that you don't want some of your views to get out.

 

[emperus]

This doesn't change the fact that you don't want some of your views to get out.

And so what? I don't think most people do. But, being an adult means realizing we don't always get what we want..

 

[nehalem256]

And so what? I don't think most people do. But, being an adult means realizing we don't always get what we want..

I would think that being an adult means you can live with the fact that someone has private views you dislike and not want to crucify them for it.

 

[smackababy]

So do we think Sterling knew he was being recorded? The lawyer for the woman is saying Sterling knew he was recorded.

I think that given the length of the recording, and how it was used, that were Sterling made aware and in agreement with the recrording that this would have been.... recorded. And in that we'd already have audio of Sterling being made aware he was being recorded.

I don't see any leeway to see the lawyer as anything other than a flat out liar here.

I'd say 100% Sterling did not know he was being recorded, because if he did, we'd have proof rather than the lying lips of some lawyer.

Any good reasons for not recording the part where you make someone aware that they will be recorded other than intending for that someone to not be made aware that they are being recorded?

I'm a bit stunned the lawyer would visit such a blatant lie here, but maybe this doesn't stand out as much given the rest of whats going on. Of course lawyers excel at lying at opportune times when needed, i'm unclear if they insist on lying to themselves first and then the public or if the lies are attuned to be second nature in their discourse. Same lawyer in question here insists that Steviano and Sterling were not romantically or sexually linked at the time of the recording.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/29/kareem-abdul-jabbar-why-arent-we-also-outraged-that-donald-sterling-was-secretly-recorded/ Worthy read from Jabbar about other side of this whole thing.

The entire story is fishy. The GF says Sterling knew he was being record and she didn't release the 10-15 minute portions of it to TMZ. Well, then who exactly did release the damage parts to them? The recording was reported to be over an hour, yet I only got to hear a 10 minute excerpt of him being an idiot.

Sterling has also stated that his relationship with Stiviano was 'sex for money; money for sex' or something using that exact terminology, I believe.

I am still concerned about the NBA being able to force a person to sell their own property because they don't like them or their views.

 

[momeNt]

So in other words thought crime.

calling stuff like this a thought crime implies law enforcement and a legal framework. When the issue has nothing to do with law enforcement, or the legal system.

It's about a person who a group of people felt was toxic to their establishment.

It's no different than a country club kicking out a member because of their views. This makes news because this particular club sells a very popular product, but it still is a collection of people that formed a club, and they are exercising some of the bylaws of their club charter.

 

[smackababy]

calling stuff like this a thought crime implies law enforcement and a legal framework. When the issue has nothing to do with law enforcement, or the legal system.

It's about a person who a group of people felt was toxic to their establishment.

It's no different than a country club kicking out a member because of their views. This makes news because this particular club sells a very popular product, but it still is a collection of people that formed a club, and they are exercising some of the bylaws of their club charter.

But, could said club be able to force the exiled member to sell an asset they legally purchased?

 

[nehalem256]

calling stuff like this a thought crime implies law enforcement and a legal framework. When the issue has nothing to do with law enforcement, or the legal system.

So its vigilante based thought crime enforcement. That seems even worse to me.

It's about a person who a group of people felt was toxic to their establishment.

It's no different than a country club kicking out a member because of their views. This makes news because this particular club sells a very popular product, but it still is a collection of people that formed a club, and they are exercising some of the bylaws of their club charter.

They kicked him out because of bunch of thought crime vigilantes. People who felt the need to crucify a man because he held private views they disliked.

 

[mchammer187]

So its vigilante based thought crime enforcement. That seems even worse to me.



They kicked him out because of bunch of thought crime vigilantes. People who felt the need to crucify a man because he held private views they disliked.

Crucify, Vigilante?

Its forceable sale of an NBA team. Cry me a river. He knew what he was getting into when you buy a team. There are all sorts of clauses in the contract he signs when you agree to own a sports franchise it goes with the territory.

The guy is not going to prison and he still gets to walk away having made over half a billion dollars. Excuse me if I don't exactly feel sorry for the guy.

This is no different than some leaked sex tape style situation in which you would be CRUCIFYING the woman.

 

[momeNt]

But, could said club be able to force the exiled member to sell an asset they legally purchased?

It depends on what he would have agreed to.

For country club memberships that have equity stakes, they can kick you out, but they would have to buy your equity back. For yearly fee, they kick you out, give you the prorated fee back for the parts of the year they did not use, and be done with you.

Adam Silver is an accomplished lawyer, I'm sure he investigated thoroughly whether or not the path he was taking was supported by the NBA bylaws.

 

[nehalem256]

Crucify, Vigilante?

Its forceable sale of an NBA team. Cry me a river. He knew what he was getting into when you buy a team. There are all sorts of clauses in the contract he signs when you agree to own a sports franchise it goes with the territory.

The guy is not going to prison and he still gets to walk away having made over half a billion dollars. Excuse me if I don't exactly feel sorry for the guy.

The point is not feeling sorry for this one guy in particular. This is basically the same as the Mozilla CEO.

Someone holds a private opinion that some people find distasteful and then a vigilante campaign is started against them.

 

[cabri]

The entire story is fishy. The GF says Sterling knew he was being record and she didn't release the 10-15 minute portions of it to TMZ. Well, then who exactly did release the damage parts to them? The recording was reported to be over an hour, yet I only got to hear a 10 minute excerpt of him being an idiot.

Sterling has also stated that his relationship with Stiviano was 'sex for money; money for sex' or something using that exact terminology, I believe.

I am still concerned about the NBA being able to force a person to sell their own property because they don't like them or their views.

suspect that with the threat of being targeted by a divorce and the wife wanting the gifts back; she recorded the conversations as protection of her retaining the gifts.

Hands the recording to the lawyer.
Lawyer and/or someone tied to him, gets ahold of the tape; realizes that it is juicy and releases (not out of their conscience) to TMZ (who was probably willing to pay for gossip)

Nothing held against the upstanding fine "shysters" :biggrin: here on AT, but some lawyers have no scruples.

 

[smackababy]

suspect that with the threat of being targeted by a divorce and the wife wanting the gifts back; she recorded the conversations as protection of her retaining the gifts.

Hands the recording to the lawyer.
Lawyer and/or someone tied to him, gets ahold of the tape; realizes that it is juicy and releases (not out of their conscience) to TMZ (who was probably willing to pay for gossip)

Nothing held against the upstanding fine "shysters" :biggrin: here on AT, but some lawyers have no scruples.

It was her lawyer that said their camp didn't release the tapes. Which makes zero sense. You made the tapes, and have the only copy, yet weren't the ones who released it.

The real thing I find strange is, what could the GF possibly gain more than she was already getting? She got a bunch of high end cars and over $250,000 in cash. Does she think she is going to get more now that Sterling is going to be like "um wat? i will stick with banging $500 an hour hookers now instead of these whores willing to out me as a racist."

I am just getting she is going to have a sex tape out before long. That is about the only way she is getting any money now. No high roller is going to bankroll her for sex now that she is connected with publicly outing one.

 

[emperus]

suspect that with the threat of being targeted by a divorce and the wife wanting the gifts back; she recorded the conversations as protection of her retaining the gifts.

Hands the recording to the lawyer.
Lawyer and/or someone tied to him, gets ahold of the tape; realizes that it is juicy and releases (not out of their conscience) to TMZ (who was probably willing to pay for gossip)

Nothing held against the upstanding fine "shysters" :biggrin: here on AT, but some lawyers have no scruples.

Them women will get ya. You should learn that when you're young.. It's a good life lesson. Hell hath no fury like a scorned woman or a female looking for a come up.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

That's a good point. I'll just say that we should be minimizing such experience-based interpretations, not embracing them.

I respectfully disagree. I would rather legislation and the judiciary were based around a wide variety of experiences so one specific experience became the "norm" (although historically that's been straight, white males, which does mean I can't complain about being underrepresented). Diversity of thought is vastly superior to the alternative; if every justice had the same interpretation of the Constitution as Scalia, this country would be in a much worse place than it is right now (wise though he may be).

 

[momeNt]

So its vigilante based thought crime enforcement. That seems even worse to me.



They kicked him out because of bunch of thought crime vigilantes. People who felt the need to crucify a man because he held private views they disliked.

Saying what he said makes him a racist, and any actions taken by the NBA, or anything said about him in the media, is in response to his racism. This is simply society regulating behavior.

"Thought crime" serves as a barrier to discussion, you are capping off any talks of his punishment by throwing in that phrase.

I think there is useful discussion to be had with regards to if this is the best way to deal with a racist. Banishment doesn't likely reform his thoughts, it may help the population in the future if it serves as a sort of "culling" of racist inclinations. Intolerance of thoughts that are generally referred to as harmful is generally how we seem to deal with people who have them. It may not be the best way though, because there will be people like you, and racists (you may or may not be a racist, so I'm distinguishing between you and them) that will pop up to defend those that are banished. It could be because you want tolerance of all opinions, or because you want tolerance of your own hateful opinions, and try and sneak that in under the guise of true tolerance.

The other option is trying to get past what a person said, or what a person is, and give them the opportunity to learn that their thoughts are wrong, let them feel bad for what they did by forgiving them, punishing them can make them feel spiteful. I think these things are very complicated, but people want a quick response, and those in charge do not want to be seen as favoring a person who is a racist like Sterling, by forgiving him, and telling those offended to forgive and let him learn how his views are wrong from a position of forgiveness rather than punishment.

I'm not sure which thread I posted this in, but consider when Pope John Paul II had an attempt on his life, he met with the person, forgave him, prayed with him, became friends with him and his family, and actually reformed the person. How would hanging him have helped that person? Or helped anybody else that hated Catholicism/Christianity? It wouldn't have.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I am still concerned about the NBA being able to force a person to sell their own property because they don't like them or their views.

That's not why they are trying to get rid of him. It's as simple as, he's bad publicity for the league. It's a business decision.

 

[smackababy]

That's not why they are trying to get rid of him. It's as simple as, he's bad publicity for the league. It's a business decision.

The reason is not meaningful in any way. The point is the NBA is deciding (for any reason) that a lawful point of view (being a racist isn't against the law) gives them the right to force said person to sell property they own. At what point do we draw the line as to what reasons are acceptable? Generally, slippery slope arguments are bullshit, but I think this is a perfectly valid scenario when they apply. What about all the homophobia in the league? Are they going to force all the homophobic owners to sell their teams? They might be outed soon!

 

[werepossum]

It depends on what he would have agreed to.

For country club memberships that have equity stakes, they can kick you out, but they would have to buy your equity back. For yearly fee, they kick you out, give you the prorated fee back for the parts of the year they did not use, and be done with you.

Adam Silver is an accomplished lawyer, I'm sure he investigated thoroughly whether or not the path he was taking was supported by the NBA bylaws.

They cannot force him to sell the club if he's the sole or majority owner. However, they can certainly revoke his charter, at which point the Clippers franchise becomes essentially worthless. At the moment though they are merely denying him the pleasure of enjoying his investment and asking the other owners to force him to sell. There again I doubt they can actually force him to sell, but forced to choose between unwillingly selling an asset worth hundreds of millions and owning it as its value approaches zero, I suspect that he'll file lawsuits and bluster and then sell.

suspect that with the threat of being targeted by a divorce and the wife wanting the gifts back; she recorded the conversations as protection of her retaining the gifts.

Hands the recording to the lawyer.
Lawyer and/or someone tied to him, gets ahold of the tape; realizes that it is juicy and releases (not out of their conscience) to TMZ (who was probably willing to pay for gossip)

Nothing held against the upstanding fine "shysters" :biggrin: here on AT, but some lawyers have no scruples.

Agreed. In this case I applaud the lawyers; they have managed to take a girl who is relatively powerless and put her at equity if not give her the whip hand as they have to be wondering what else she has. If the appearance is true (Sterling using expensive gifts to bed women with whom he would otherwise have zero shot, Mrs. Sterling suing to force the return of those gifts) then this underhandedness is in the best tradition of lawyers.

I respectfully disagree. I would rather legislation and the judiciary were based around a wide variety of experiences so one specific experience became the "norm" (although historically that's been straight, white males, which does mean I can't complain about being underrepresented). Diversity of thought is vastly superior to the alternative; if every justice had the same interpretation of the Constitution as Scalia, this country would be in a much worse place than it is right now (wise though he may be).

Understood and accepted. My objection is not actually to diversity of experience, but toward a woman who over and over asserts her judicial superiority by virtue of sex and birth.

 

[momeNt]

They cannot force him to sell the club if he's the sole or majority owner. However, they can certainly revoke his charter, at which point the Clippers franchise becomes essentially worthless. At the moment though they are merely denying him the pleasure of enjoying his investment and asking the other owners to force him to sell. There again I doubt they can actually force him to sell, but forced to choose between unwillingly selling an asset worth hundreds of millions and owning it as its value approaches zero, I suspect that he'll file lawsuits and bluster and then sell.

Where did you read this? I haven't read any of the NBA bylaws, but I really doubt Silver would say "The owners can force a sale with a 75% vote" if that wasn't specifically and conspicuously in the NBA somewhere. He didn't just make it up.

 

[smackababy]

Where did you read this? I haven't read any of the NBA bylaws, but I really doubt Silver would say "The owners can force a sale with a 75% vote" if that wasn't specifically and conspicuously in the NBA somewhere. He didn't just make it up.

Even if it is in the bylaws, I doubt that is enforceable. At least, I sure hope it isn't. And, if even just out of spite, Sterling should fight it. Plus, it really isn't in the owners interest to set a president of being able to force someone to sell something they legally own.

What happens when the NBA decides owning a the worst team in the league is bad for business? Do the owners get to vote to force them to sell? Or if an owner fires a beloved coach or GM or something that causes fans to boycott a team?

 

[mchammer187]

The reason is not meaningful in any way. The point is the NBA is deciding (for any reason) that a lawful point of view (being a racist isn't against the law) gives them the right to force said person to sell property they own. At what point do we draw the line as to what reasons are acceptable? Generally, slippery slope arguments are bullshit, but I think this is a perfectly valid scenario when they apply. What about all the homophobia in the league? Are they going to force all the homophobic owners to sell their teams? They might be outed soon!

The reason they can be dismissed are stated in the contract the owners sign when they acquire the team.

I'm sure they are updated all the time as well.

The NBA can do pretty much whatever it wants because the owners have signed certain rights to them.

 

[smackababy]

The reason they can be dismissed are stated in the contract the owners sign when they acquire the team.

I'm sure they are updated all the time as well.

The NBA can do pretty much whatever it wants because the owners have signed certain rights to them.

The NBA might put that in the contract, but if it deemed not legal in courts (which is what I suspect Sterling would fight to find out) those rights aren't stripped. Quite a few agreements contain less than legal stripping of rights, but never hold up in court.