LA Clippers owner racist rant at girlfriend

[Don Vito Corleone]

i

Your attempt at sensationalist humor doesn't change the fact that this was a private conversation that, apparently, was illegally recorded. Would you like to be publicly scrutinized and held accountable for every thought you had? Of course not, this isn't 1940's Germany.

I find it strange that anyone would take the view that the recording of this conversation was illegal is in any manner relevant to this discussion. He is not being charged with a crime, so no exclusionary rule applies to make the recording inadmissible. I for one am certainly not nominating his girlfriend as Woman of the Year - she seems like bad news to me - but Sterling either holds these racist views or he doesn't.

 

[BikeJunkie]

i

I find it strange that anyone would take the view that the recording of this conversation was illegal is in any manner relevant to this discussion. He is not being charged with a crime, so no exclusionary rule applies to make the recording inadmissible. I for one am certainly not nominating his girlfriend as Woman of the Year - she seems like bad news to me - but Sterling either holds these racist views or he doesn't.

Because we don't punish people for thought crimes. Given that, and that this was a private conversation, the only thing remotely interesting about this is the illegal recording - and even that is dull as hell.

 

[BudAshes]

Your attempt at sensationalist humor doesn't change the fact that this was a private conversation that, apparently, was illegally recorded. Would you like to be publicly scrutinized and held accountable for every thought you had? Of course not, this isn't 1940's Germany.

Oh shit, the nazi's are getting mentioned. This thread is getting serious. Lets get the popcorn out.

 

[BudAshes]

Because we don't punish people for thought crimes. Given that, and that this was a private conversation, the only thing remotely interesting about this is the illegal recording - and even that is dull as hell.

And yet you seem highly interested.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

i

I find it strange that anyone would take the view that the recording of this conversation was illegal is in any manner relevant to this discussion. He is not being charged with a crime, so no exclusionary rule applies to make the recording inadmissible. I for one am certainly not nominating his girlfriend as Woman of the Year - she seems like bad news to me - but Sterling either holds these racist views or he doesn't.

In CA it is in fact a crime for making an unauthorized recording depending on the circumstances, however, as I said in the P&N thread it has not been established where this recording is alledged to have taken place or how.

Since Sterling has not admitted it is authentic or stated where it happened there is the possibility that he has no reasonable expectation of privacy should the recording have taken place in a public or semi-public place. Again not to say that public/semi-public gives blanket immunity from the recording but it still is a possibility.

 

[rudeguy]

That is some seriously stupid dissembling. This state rep happens to be black, and there is nothing intrinsically racist about calling someone an Uncle Tom (particularly where the accuser is himself black). Moreover, he is a state representative, not, say, a United States Senator. There are not enough hours in the day to turn every ill-advised comment by a state legislator into national news.

Hmmm....

So its not ok for a private citizen to express himself in a private conversation. However it is perfectly acceptable for an elected official to publicly make negative comments based solely on race?

So what you are saying is the owner should have gotten on the loudspeaker before the game and said what he said? Then it would be ok?

 

[Drako]

Why is nobody reporting the biggest story here?

An 80 year old knows what Instagram is.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Because we don't punish people for thought crimes. Given that, and that this was a private conversation, the only thing remotely interesting about this is the illegal recording - and even that is dull as hell.

Nobody is being "punished" for a "thought crime." There has been no discussion of any governmental action of any kind against Sterling. People have the right, however, to judge him based on his words, and the NBA, a private enterprise, has the right to take action against him. You seem to be saying that there can be no consequences for people saying awful things, a position I consider both false and nonsensical.

If you don't find this story "remotely interesting," why are you participating in this discussion?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Hmmm....

So its not ok for a private citizen to express himself in a private conversation. However it is perfectly acceptable for an elected official to publicly make negative comments based solely on race?

So what you are saying is the owner should have gotten on the loudspeaker before the game and said what he said? Then it would be ok?

I think it's absolutely OK for a private individual to express himself in a private conversation. I also think it's absolutely OK for people to judge that person based on his words if they become public, as they have here.

Your effort to rope in the Alabama state representative is just absurd on its face. A black man criticizes another black man for, in the speaker's opinion, not doing enough to help other black people, and you believe that is racist? I see nothing even remotely racist in that. You seem to be taking the view that any mention of race is equivalent to actual racist comments, which is so obviously ridiculous that I can't believe what you're saying. You're going to have to draw me a diagram . . .

 

[Markbnj]

Your attempt at sensationalist humor doesn't change the fact that this was a private conversation that, apparently, was illegally recorded. Would you like to be publicly scrutinized and held accountable for every thought you had? Of course not, this isn't 1940's Germany.

The fact that this reprehensible douchebag chose to cavort with an untrustworthy, gold-digging whore rather than pass his old age with some shred of dignity does not obligate me to feel sorry that she ripped the lid off his cesspool of a personality and laid it bare for the world to ridicule. He deserves every bad thing that comes of this, and so does she.

 

[rudeguy]

I think it's absolutely OK for a private individual to express himself in a private conversation. I also think it's absolutely OK for people to judge that person based on his words if they become public, as they have here.

Your effort to rope in the Alabama state representative is just absurd on its face. A black man criticizes another black man for, in the speaker's opinion, not doing enough to help other black people, and you believe that is racist? I see nothing even remotely racist in that. You seem to be taking the view that any mention of race is equivalent to actual racist comments, which is so obviously ridiculous that I can't believe what you're saying. You're going to have to draw me a diagram . . .

white guy tells his girlfriend he doesn't like her taking pictures with black guys or bringing them to a game. He's a douche obviously but he has every right to be a douche.

black guy goes on national media to say that a Supreme Court Justice is an Uncle Tom for following what the white man tells him. He's a douche and is obligated to certain moral and ethical standards that a private citizen is.

The bottom line is that the Constitution gives us the right to free speech. The vast majority of the time, what is said is going to not be something that agrees with you. That is our God given right and the morons in this thread who are getting so upset are proving that our country has gone soft. This directly affected no one here. Yet there is a 3 page thread about it? The correct reply to this headline is "and?".

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My words to live by.

 

[momeNt]

You know who is the least harmed by all this? Donald Sterling. The man is fucking rich, even if the force him to sell his team, he bought it 30 years ago at 15m, and he'll get well over 500m by selling it.

He also has will have a whole slew of white women who would be able to tolerate not being around black people for his sake lining up to suck his cock so that they can get the few million worth of gifts a year that his previous girlfriend received.

So uhh.... yea, what he said is pretty bad, it makes it worse that he is an NBA owner with an 80% black league. The whites in the organization are likely going to face some misguided ridicule for being associated with him as well. So it's bad for everybody really, except an 80 year old mega millionaire on his way out.

 

[BikeJunkie]

Nobody is being "punished" for a "thought crime." There has been no discussion of any governmental action of any kind against Sterling.

You specified "government," not me. People want him stripped of his team for comments he made in private. That's pretty scary territory if you ask me.

You seem to be saying that there can be no consequences for people saying awful things, a position I consider both false and nonsensical.

So should you be held publicly accountable for what you say to your girlfriend? Spouse? Within the confines of your home? What about what you utter aloud while sleeping? Where do you draw the line for this?

What I find nonsensical is convening a mob and collecting pitchforks over what was said in a private conversation, and the reason people aren't interested in the fact that his words were recorded illegally is because that mere fact underscores the private nature of the situation and it distracts from the public outcry.

If you don't find this story "remotely interesting," why are you participating in this discussion?

I'm responding to the reaction to the story, not the story itself. There's a big difference; I do find the former rather interesting (and disturbing).

I'm not defending the guy; I patently disagree with his views. But the last thing I want is to live in a society where I can't even think/speak freely in what should otherwise be a private, confidential situation. Certainly you can appreciate that.

 

[BikeJunkie]

white guy tells his girlfriend he doesn't like her taking pictures with black guys or bringing them to a game. He's a douche obviously but he has every right to be a douche.

black guy goes on national media to say that a Supreme Court Justice is an Uncle Tom for following what the white man tells him. He's a douche and is obligated to certain moral and ethical standards that a private citizen is.

The bottom line is that the Constitution gives us the right to free speech. The vast majority of the time, what is said is going to not be something that agrees with you. That is our God given right and the morons in this thread who are getting so upset are proving that our country has gone soft. This directly affected no one here. Yet there is a 3 page thread about it? The correct reply to this headline is "and?".

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My words to live by.

And then there's this. When someone casually dismisses the story Rudeguy pointed out while chomping at the bit at Sterling, I know they have an agenda... and it's not one grounded in consistency and reason.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

white guy tells his girlfriend he doesn't like her taking pictures with black guys or bringing them to a game. He's a douche obviously but he has every right to be a douche.

black guy goes on national media to say that a Supreme Court Justice is an Uncle Tom for following what the white man tells him. He's a douche and is obligated to certain moral and ethical standards that a private citizen is.

The bottom line is that the Constitution gives us the right to free speech. The vast majority of the time, what is said is going to not be something that agrees with you. That is our God given right and the morons in this thread who are getting so upset are proving that our country has gone soft. This directly affected no one here. Yet there is a 3 page thread about it? The correct reply to this headline is "and?".

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My words to live by.

What's strange about your post is that you seem to be implying that the AL state rep does not have the right to say what he said, or at least that he has a lesser right to say what he said (which is in no sense racist) than Sterling has to say what he said (which absolutely is racist).

My view is that our right to free speech is among our nation's most important strengths. This does not carry with it the right to say things that others might find offensive without consequence. If you own a business (here, a team) in a highly profitable industry that relies very heavily on black employees and executives, and are caught on tape making racist comments about black people, there will be consequences. I have no problem whatsoever with that. Frankly, in this situation, the "consequence" of being forced to sell the Clippers (assuming that's what happens) and yield a $600M profit doesn't seem like a huge hardship.

I find it goofy, but understandable, when non-Americans fail to grasp the concept of free speech. When an American fails to appreciate the difference between governmental and non-governmental consequences for speech, though, I am concerned.

 

[BudAshes]

white guy tells his girlfriend he doesn't like her taking pictures with black guys or bringing them to a game. He's a douche obviously but he has every right to be a douche.

black guy goes on national media to say that a Supreme Court Justice is an Uncle Tom for following what the white man tells him. He's a douche and is obligated to certain moral and ethical standards that a private citizen is.

The bottom line is that the Constitution gives us the right to free speech. The vast majority of the time, what is said is going to not be something that agrees with you. That is our God given right and the morons in this thread who are getting so upset are proving that our country has gone soft. This directly affected no one here. Yet there is a 3 page thread about it? The correct reply to this headline is "and?".

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." My words to live by.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

 

[rudeguy]

What's strange about your post is that you seem to be implying that the AL state rep does not have the right to say what he said, or at least that he has a lesser right to say what he said (which is in no sense racist) than Sterling has to say what he said (which absolutely is racist).

My view is that our right to free speech is among our nation's most important strengths. This does not carry with it the right to say things that others might find offensive without consequence. If you own a business (here, a team) in a highly profitable industry that relies very heavily on black employees and executives, and are caught on tape making racist comments about black people, there will be consequences. I have no problem whatsoever with that. Frankly, in this situation, the "consequence" of being forced to sell the Clippers (assuming that's what happens) and yield a $600M profit doesn't seem like a huge hardship.

I find it goofy, but understandable, when non-Americans fail to grasp the concept of free speech. When an American fails to appreciate the difference between governmental and non-governmental consequences for speech, though, I am concerned.

I am saying the only reason this is even a story is because the libtard media is hyping it and the sheeple are following along. While someone in an elected position making even worse comments is given a pass.

My problem is with all of you following what the media tells you to get excited over and then ignoring even worse things. Its the same thing as everyone getting worked up about a mall shooting where no one dies but ignoring 20 innocent people shot in one weekend in Chicago. If you want to be sheeple and let the media tell you how to feel, fine. But please don't expect any respect from those of us that are capable of thinking for ourselves.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You specified "government," not me. People want him stripped of his team for comments he made in private. That's pretty scary territory if you ask me.

So should you be held publicly accountable for what you say to your girlfriend? Spouse? Within the confines of your home? What about what you utter aloud while sleeping? Where do you draw the line for this?

What I find nonsensical is convening a mob and collecting pitchforks over what was said in a private conversation, and the reason people aren't interested in the fact that his words were recorded illegally is because that mere fact underscores the private nature of the situation and it distracts from the public outcry.

I'm responding to the reaction to the story, not the story itself. There's a big difference; I do find the former rather interesting (and disturbing).

I'm not defending the guy; I patently disagree with his views. But the last thing I want is to live in a society where I can't even think/speak freely in what should otherwise be a private, confidential situation. Certainly you can appreciate that.

The reason I specified "government" is because we as Americans have the constitutional right to be free from government sanction for engaging in protected free speech. That does not guarantee us the right to be free from non-governmental sanctions. I fully expect that the NBA will take stern measures here, as I believe it should. I do not see this as a privacy issue in any manner. You are hung up on the fact that this conversation was illegally recorded, but there would be nothing remotely illegal about the woman repeating what Sterling said to a reporter, or to the NBA commissioner. Nobody (and certainly not a billionaire and professional sports franchise owner who has made hundreds of millions of dollars through the efforts of black players and coaches) should be foolish enough to think that there might not be consequences for making racist remarks, in public or in private.

 

[Markbnj]

The bottom line is that the Constitution gives us the right to free speech. The vast majority of the time, what is said is going to not be something that agrees with you. That is our God given right and the morons in this thread who are getting so upset are proving that our country has gone soft. This directly affected no one here. Yet there is a 3 page thread about it? The correct reply to this headline is "and?".

This entire forum exists for the purpose of wasting time and the fact that there is a three page thread on anything is about as meaningful as the zit on my ass. What I don't understand is why anyone would give two shakes whether this idiot's privacy was violated, or not? If it was violated, then it was violated ultimately because of his own bad judgement. Let us all weep for the poor rich guy who just didn't know that his rent-a-cooch was recording his voice. Please. You really think Sterling's rights need to be defended here?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I am saying the only reason this is even a story is because the libtard media is hyping it and the sheeple are following along.

I've been searching for evidence that someone can make a cogent argument while using terms like "libtard" or "sheeple." Sadly, it appears my quest is far from over.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I am saying the only reason this is even a story is because the libtard media is hyping it and the sheeple are following along. While someone in an elected position making even worse comments is given a pass.

My problem is with all of you following what the media tells you to get excited over and then ignoring even worse things. Its the same thing as everyone getting worked up about a mall shooting where no one dies but ignoring 20 innocent people shot in one weekend in Chicago. If you want to be sheeple and let the media tell you how to feel, fine. But please don't expect any respect from those of us that are capable of thinking for ourselves.

Whenever someone uses a word like "libtard" or "Rethuglican," I know something stupid will follow. When "sheeple" is thrown into the mix, I know the post will go Full Retard.

The fact that you believe that a black state representative calling a black Supreme Court justice an Uncle Tom is "even worse" than what Sterling said is just absurd. Again, Sterling is a billionaire who owns an enormously valuable franchise in a black-dominated sport. The revelation of his comments is major news.

The fact that you are "capable of thinking for yourself" doesn't mean you're good at it.

 

[KeithTalent]

There is also a history with Sterling which people seem to forget (stories linked earlier). This is not the first time, it is just a bigger story this time for whatever reason.

KT

 

[BudAshes]

I've been searching for evidence that someone can make a cogent argument while using terms like "libtard" or "sheeple." Sadly, it appears my quest is far from over.

My respect for rudeguy is going down by the minute, and it didn't start much above homeless guy who forgot to wear pants who is trying to tell me about an investment opportunity. This is why these threads need to be in p&n so we don't see the dark side of people we joke around with.

 

[eng2d2]

Entrapment and a setup

 

[momeNt]

There is also a history with Sterling which people seem to forget (stories linked earlier). This is not the first time, it is just a bigger story this time for whatever reason.

KT

It's a bigger story this time because the franchise is doing well and there are some potential buyers lined up. Nobody was going to buy the team during the apartment lawsuit or the Elgin Baylor lawsuit, so not much incentive to report on it. Did the players stand up with Elgin Baylor and stage protest when he made his claims? Nope. But oh wow, Magic Johnson might become our owner! Let's warm up in non-clippers apparel and consider boycotting the games.

Not to detract from the fact he is racist, but just offering my opinion on why this particular case of racism has more traction than previous cases of racism.