NBA investigates Clippers owner Donald Sterling for racism

[SonicHawk]

He has an incredible 1st amendment and privacy rights case on his hands. The case should honestly go to the supreme court and any (pro) lawyer would take that case in a heartbeat

No he doesn't.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

One day, everyone will understand that the first amendment applies to the government and not to private organizations or individuals.

One day.

 

[drdiags]

I'm confused. I admit I haven't continually been following this, but did the GF release the tape or not?

http://deadspin.com/v-stiviano-appears-on-20-20-says-donald-sterling-is-n-1571171738

 

[Throwdown]

Reading that link, that lady is dumb as helllllllll

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

One day, everyone will understand that the first amendment applies to the government and not to private organizations or individuals.

One day.

So individuals cannot violate others' constitutional rights; only the government can? I'm sorry, but that is completely incorrect. While the amendments to the Constitution were primarily put in place to restrict government, they absolutely apply to anyone and everyone.

Privacy is not an acceptable term for a public figure. We live in a public word, if you're a public figure things will come out. Everyone has phones that record HD video and audio. I prefer a world in which people actually think about what they do and say and see consequences (not by the government but by other humans) rather than a world that's hush hush.

I'm a little confused over this whole "when you're a public figure, you give up some of your rights" issue. At what point do you become famous enough to forgo rights? D-list celebrity? Mid-list author? Cult Internet hero? Please enlighten us what one has to do in order to be considered less covered by constitutional rights. Yes, public figures should realize they are under far greater scrutiny from the public than the average Joe, but at no point do they give up any of their rights just because they're famous.

The concept that consequences can be dealt out by vigilante justice is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Whether or not the "justice" is merited, it's completely unconstitutional to force people into what a majority thinks is acceptable consequences by means of mob pressure. Yes, Donald Sterling is a racist, and an asshole of a human being. But he is hardly the only racist around. Hell, he's not even the only racist to have invested in ownership of an NBA team. Spike Lee, part owner of the Knicks is quoted calling Clarence Thomas "a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." The ahem, "reverend" Al Sharpton has said more racist things than anyone wants to quote here. We don't see the mob justice working in these cases, and won't any time soon. And the fact that we don't, whether because of the color of the offender's skin, their political affiliation, or any other reason, is exactly why this notion of "justice by mob vigilantism" is so very dangerous.

 

[chris98251]

The NBA is or can be looked at as a private club, the members having the ability to choose who can be in that club so to speak given parameters, I think that is what is happening really, they are protecting the club.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

The NBA is or can be looked at as a private club, the members having the ability to choose who can be in that club so to speak given parameters, I think that is what is happening really, they are protecting the club.

Yes, that is completely true, and acceptable within those parameters. However, would they have done the same had there not been the pressure from an angry mob over this? Doubtful, unless you buy into the theory that this whole thing was orchestrated by elements who wanted him out of the NBA so someone else could buy the team. Have to admit, there are parts of this that make one suspicious of just that. If so, that's a whole lotta shady going on right there, no matter if everyone likes the end result or not.

 

[Throwdown]

It is odd that it got leaked, and the timing could be looked at as strange. Practically all eyes were on the NBA from the beginning of April when the playoffs started. If they wanted to bring attention to what kind of POS Sterling was, this was pretty good timing when most the nation is watching.

But doesn't change the fact that they were his views and they were harmful to the league with a majority of black players and at the very least had a negative effect on the immediate and and long term future of the Clippers (depending on how much longer he has to live with the prostate cancer), mob mentality of not, both things were in danger of damage.

 

[chris98251]

The NBA is or can be looked at as a private club, the members having the ability to choose who can be in that club so to speak given parameters, I think that is what is happening really, they are protecting the club.

Yes, that is completely true, and acceptable within those parameters. However, would they have done the same had there not been the pressure from an angry mob over this? Doubtful, unless you buy into the theory that this whole thing was orchestrated by elements who wanted him out of the NBA so someone else could buy the team. Have to admit, there are parts of this that make one suspicious of just that. If so, that's a whole lotta shady going on right there, no matter if everyone likes the end result or not.

Ahh being the douchebag he is, we have no idea who he has pissed off, how he treats the women in his life, a ex wife scorned, a lot of money at stake, a statement that he should have bought her off was released also. I didn't read the article but the quote is a point in itself. He shuts people up with money and if making a statement and quoted has done it in the past.

Someone is out to ruin him and get payback for something and he is arrogant enough to step into it, muddy his shoes and then make statements that can only be construed as self incriminating.

 

[SonicHawk]

Privacy is not an acceptable term for a public figure. We live in a public word, if you're a public figure things will come out. Everyone has phones that record HD video and audio. I prefer a world in which people actually think about what they do and say and see consequences (not by the government but by other humans) rather than a world that's hush hush.

I'm a little confused over this whole "when you're a public figure, you give up some of your rights" issue. At what point do you become famous enough to forgo rights? D-list celebrity? Mid-list author? Cult Internet hero? Please enlighten us what one has to do in order to be considered less covered by constitutional rights. Yes, public figures should realize they are under far greater scrutiny from the public than the average Joe, but at no point do they give up any of their rights just because they're famous.

The concept that consequences can be dealt out by vigilante justice is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Whether or not the "justice" is merited, it's completely unconstitutional to force people into what a majority thinks is acceptable consequences by means of mob pressure. Yes, Donald Sterling is a racist, and an asshole of a human being. But he is hardly the only racist around. Hell, he's not even the only racist to have invested in ownership of an NBA team. Spike Lee, part owner of the Knicks is quoted calling Clarence Thomas "a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." The ahem, "reverend" Al Sharpton has said more racist things than anyone wants to quote here. We don't see the mob justice working in these cases, and won't any time soon. And the fact that we don't, whether because of the color of the offender's skin, their political affiliation, or any other reason, is exactly why this notion of "justice by mob vigilantism" is so very dangerous.

Vigilante justice?

Once again, there is no legal issue here. I'm not asking him to be thrown in jail, I'm not even saying that the taping of him was right... it really is a moot point though. He can sue her all she wants for releasing the tape. That's their issue.

This isn't justice by 'mob vigilantism', this is someone who owns a sports team that is predominantly black, with a fanbase that includes many blacks, to sponsors who have many black customers and them not wanting their brands to be associated with that person.

Spike Lee calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom isn't racism.

Try saying what he said at your day job, do you think you're going to be employed long?

I have no idea why you're upset about this. This sets absolutely no precedent, this isn't surprising, this should be the outcome...

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Vigilante justice?
his isn't justice by 'mob vigilantism', this is someone who owns a sports team that is predominantly black, with a fanbase that includes many blacks, to sponsors who have many black customers and them not wanting their brands to be associated with that person.

Spike Lee calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom isn't racism.

Try saying what he said at your day job, do you think you're going to be employed long?

I have no idea why you're upset about this. This sets absolutely no precedent, this isn't surprising, this should be the outcome...

It's mob vigilantism, whether it leads to legal precedings or not. Yes, it's despicable what he said. He's despicable. Totally despicable. But nothing he said was illegal.

Of course you say Spike Lee calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom isn't racism. If it was a conservative saying that, his head would already be on a pike, but since Spike Lee has higher levels of melatonin in his system and votes for the "right" political party, he is incapable of uttering racist remarks.

I'm not upset about this in the least; I just see a dangerous precedent being set, one that is taking away our civil liberties. Of course the ones pushing this won't see it until they're the ones being lynched, and then it will be too late for them.

 

[Scottemojo]

Post game last night, Barkley wanted Mrs Sterling banned from games too, hinted at more racist crap, then added that he better be quiet, he doesn't want them to make him sell his stuff too, or something like that. I honestly think he might have been tipsy, even for him it was a mush mouthed effort that the 3 other commentators were somehow able to just ignore.

I cant help but feel a double standard. Before you point out all the differences, save it, I know what they are. It just amazes me that in their zeal to wave pitchforks, the mob chasing Sterling has plenty in it scorching the earth with their own hatreds and bigotries.

 

[HansGruber]

Privacy is not an acceptable term for a public figure. We live in a public word, if you're a public figure things will come out. Everyone has phones that record HD video and audio. I prefer a world in which people actually think about what they do and say and see consequences (not by the government but by other humans) rather than a world that's hush hush.

I'm a little confused over this whole "when you're a public figure, you give up some of your rights" issue. At what point do you become famous enough to forgo rights? D-list celebrity? Mid-list author? Cult Internet hero? Please enlighten us what one has to do in order to be considered less covered by constitutional rights. Yes, public figures should realize they are under far greater scrutiny from the public than the average Joe, but at no point do they give up any of their rights just because they're famous.

The concept that consequences can be dealt out by vigilante justice is a dangerous precedent to be setting. Whether or not the "justice" is merited, it's completely unconstitutional to force people into what a majority thinks is acceptable consequences by means of mob pressure. Yes, Donald Sterling is a racist, and an asshole of a human being. But he is hardly the only racist around. Hell, he's not even the only racist to have invested in ownership of an NBA team. Spike Lee, part owner of the Knicks is quoted calling Clarence Thomas "a handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom." The ahem, "reverend" Al Sharpton has said more racist things than anyone wants to quote here. We don't see the mob justice working in these cases, and won't any time soon. And the fact that we don't, whether because of the color of the offender's skin, their political affiliation, or any other reason, is exactly why this notion of "justice by mob vigilantism" is so very dangerous.

Vigilante justice?

Once again, there is no legal issue here. I'm not asking him to be thrown in jail, I'm not even saying that the taping of him was right... it really is a moot point though. He can sue her all she wants for releasing the tape. That's their issue.

This isn't justice by 'mob vigilantism', this is someone who owns a sports team that is predominantly black, with a fanbase that includes many blacks, to sponsors who have many black customers and them not wanting their brands to be associated with that person.

Spike Lee calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom isn't racism.

Try saying what he said at your day job, do you think you're going to be employed long?

I have no idea why you're upset about this. This sets absolutely no precedent, this isn't surprising, this should be the outcome...

I can't imagine anything more racist than calling a successful black man an Uncle Tom. If Spike Lee really did that, it's just one more reason to ignore that talentless hack.

 

[SonicHawk]

It's a horribly stupid, unforgivable thing to say... but a black man calling a black man an 'Uncle Tom' I wouldn't classify as racism.

 

[drdiags]

The Uncle Tom thing is more self-loathing and crab-in-a-barrel mentality that has to be dealt with in its own vein. That thinking is along the line of not wanting to appear too smart in class. Using peer pressure to mask inadequacies.

Or the more classic, "Cornball brother" use by the former ESPN First Take gentleman.

 

[HansGruber]

It's a horribly stupid, unforgivable thing to say... but a black man calling a black man an 'Uncle Tom' I wouldn't classify as racism.

Nonsense.

Have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin? That metaphor is the literal epitome of white southern slave owner racism. It is the embodiment of 19th Century racism at its very worst.

Regardless of who wields that label as a weapon, its brutal and obvious intent was to belittle and demean a man based solely on skin color and race. To diminish his life and accomplishments as the result of kissing up to white masters. How is that not racism? It's the absolute worst form of racism.

Regardless of your political bent, Clarence Thomas was being hand picked by the President for the highest judicial office in the US. That is a far greater accomplishment than anything Spike Lee could even imagine for himself. Judge Thomas' name will forever be a part of American Law. He is immortalized by his position, and his words stand as authority above all "masters." Even the President, the highest ranking American, is subject to his findings.

Spike Lee is a joke. His films are boring irrelevant trash, he has contributed nothing of note to American culture and will be forgotten within a single generation. He is the ultimate superficial talking head, seeking publicity and advantage for his skin color while doing no actual good for those he claims to represent. Further, this moron gave out the home address of George Zimmerman, only it turned out to be someone else. Leading to that family receiving death threats and having to move. Spike Lee has done far more harm than good and his civil rights record is a joke.

Further, the fact that white civil rights "supporters" accept the use of racial slurs by blacks against themselves and other minorities is sickening and hypocritical. Most of the harm done in black communities is black on black, the result of idiots attacking those who work hard, succeed and try to elevate their communities. Your opinion isnt just wrong, it actually encourages the worst type of racism faced by black communities today.

Racism is racism. Period.

 

[Scottemojo]

Haha, Spike Lee calls Thomas an uncle tom and it isn't racism? I don't know if there could be a more racially charged moniker. Spike basically called him a supporter of slavery.

No big deal, Spike has been pretty hard to take seriously since Reggie Miller made him a a joke during that Nickerbockers Pacers series.

 

[SonicHawk]

It's a horribly stupid, unforgivable thing to say... but a black man calling a black man an 'Uncle Tom' I wouldn't classify as racism.

Nonsense.

Have you read Uncle Tom's Cabin? That metaphor is the literal epitome of white southern slave owner racism. It is the embodiment of 19th Century racism at its very worst.

Regardless of who wields that label as a weapon, its brutal and obvious intent was to belittle and demean a man based solely on skin color and race. To diminish his life and accomplishments as the result of kissing up to white masters. How is that not racism? It's the absolute worst form of racism.

Regardless of your political bent, Clarence Thomas was being hand picked by the President for the highest judicial office in the US. That is a far greater accomplishment than anything Spike Lee could even imagine for himself. Judge Thomas' name will forever be a part of American Law. He is immortalized by his position, and his words stand as authority above all "masters." Even the President, the highest ranking American, is subject to his findings.

Spike Lee is a joke. His films are boring irrelevant trash, he has contributed nothing of note to American culture and will be forgotten within a single generation. He is the ultimate superficial talking head, seeking publicity and advantage for his skin color while doing no actual good for those he claims to represent. Further, this moron gave out the home address of George Zimmerman, only it turned out to be someone else. Leading to that family receiving death threats and having to move. Spike Lee has done far more harm than good and his civil rights record is a joke.

Further, the fact that white civil rights "supporters" accept the use of racial slurs by blacks against themselves and other minorities is sickening and hypocritical. Most of the harm done in black communities is black on black, the result of idiots attacking those who work hard, succeed and try to elevate their communities. Your opinion isnt just wrong, it actually encourages the worst type of racism faced by black communities today.

Racism is racism. Period.

Because a black man viewing another black man sucking up to white men to get ahead is exactly what 'Uncle Tom' is. It's not racism. If Lee views Thomas as a man who ignored his fellow race, looks down on them and wishes he was white... that's not racism, that's just a horrible thing to think. There's a huge difference between Lee thinking black people are lesser than white people and Lee believing that Thomas thinks that.

And you're right, Spike Lee is a joke and from what I've gathered of Spike Lee I would guess that he is a racist himself. Growing up in a mixed househould I saw all of Lee's movies and other than 'Mo' Better Blues' and 'He Got Game' it's garbage.

I'm not here to defend Lee's comments and I agree that calling Thomas that is detrimental to blacks, but it's not racism. If another black man called me 'Uncle Tom' I would be extremely offended and probably have to kick somebody's butt, but I'm not calling Sharpton.

 

[SonicHawk]

Spike basically called him a supporter of slavery.

Pretty much, but a Black-American supporting slavery is quite a bit different than a White-American (in the context Lee was saying).

This isn't Klan rally usage of the term, this is Lee calling Thomas ashamed of his skin.

 

[Throwdown]

this was caught at last nights game vs the Thunder...

check out homeboy in the glasses though...