With all due respect, I think Maris is confusing two things. Sterling has the constitutional right to say stupid and bigoted things. No one is sending him to prison for it. No one should. A business can regulate. The NBA apparently has clauses governing owners' behavior that they all agree to. No one is forcing anyone to be an NBA owner; it is totally voluntary and includes agreeing to abide by certain rules. Sterling did not. His "punishment" is making a mint selling his team. He may actually have a point that the NBA has skeletons in its closet, but that is legally irrelevant. If you are busted you can't say "Bobby did bad things so I should not be charged". Well, you can (free speech!) but it's not much of a legal defense.
In a conversation about political philosophy, he debated for an unpopular side. He did not do this on the work site. He did not do it publicly (the tape was released against his will). The rule he broke was a morals clause, i.e. not to embarrass the NBA. He did not embarrass the league on purpose (the tape was released against his will). For years, he had kept his thoughts out of the public spotlight. Let's say he had debated for a more popular cause, like, the U.S. should close the Guantanamo torture camp. Would everyone then reverse their opinion of him? Would liberals like him, and conservatives want him out? Because next time, this principal we are establishing may be used against our side.
You are the confused one. Past actions set precedents by proving intent, or lack of intent. The NBA not only has to prove Sterling did substantial damage to the NBA by voicing a private opinion in private, but it most importantly has to prove other owners, management and players have not been allowed to commit similar acts in the past without similar consequences. You can't allow one owner to be openly and actively racist in his business practices while penalizing another for merely making private statements. That would be discrimination in the workplace, which is a criminal act. Done in concert it is a criminal conspiracy. The reality of course is that they can't possibly defend themselves against the truth. The NBA is extremely racist, and sexist, and it has been well-documented in court during Stern's reign. So their main gripe, that he has somehow scared away fans, is absurd.
Based on what NBA regs? Do the NBA regulations really say that to show one person has been racist, destructive, et al the NBA has to prove no one else has? That would make it unique among business or legal documents!
+1. And all remember that he went to "law school" at an unaccredited California school--and it shows.
To be fair, many law schools that are now accredited weren't in 1960. Sterling's law school was accredited in 1970, but the list of law schools accredited from 1960-on is lengthy.
What am I supposed to get from that unsourced list? Does it include reaccreditation or just first-time accreditation? Which of those colleges is his? In 1960, were most law schools unaccredited? Which of those law schools were newly-created, vs. not being good enough for many years before becoming accredited? Posting that unsourced list was a useless exercise without answering those questions.
Can anyone answer the question I asked Stevenson...Which clause in the Constitution have courts used to justify morals clauses that control employees' political debates with girlfriends while not at work? After that is answered, next question...How have courts extrapolated this rule to also control the behavior of independent contractors and business owners? Then the next step...Even if all those evil principles are established law, has it ever been used to oust someone for accidentally, not on purpose, embarrassing someone? (The tape was DISCLOSED against his will. He hasn't said whether it was MADE against his will, i.e. if he consented to the taping, so the tape may be illegal.) Last question...If we can all lose our jobs/businesses for political debate, not at work, with a girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse/bum on the street...shouldn't you be afraid to read this?
I am very aware that all political opinion is recorded. I understand why those of you young enough to nurture a career remain silent. It's okay.
He seems intent on burning the entire organization. I can't say I'm not intrigued by the possibilities. If the NBA was torn apart, what would rise in its place?
Could be pure, honest basketball....but in this day and age I fear the opposite, closer to WWF style basketball with a steady dose of "real housewives" type made for TV melodrama.
