Mark Levin and Donald Sterling

[MikeK]

Sterling should have been careful about two things. One, the contracts he signed, it's all legal, and two, his actual thoughts on the race of those who make him the big bucks, who he'd so easily call *******.

I think Sterling's main mistake is failing to realize he is a worn out, flaccid old man who cannot possibly be attractive to any woman, especially a young woman, and allowing himself to believe V. Striviani was interested in anything other than his money. That naïve old man has been the victim of a serpentine wench who probably has been recording conversations with him for quite a while and is capable of creating lots of enemies he doesn't need.

She will come away from this with a few million because there is no fool like an old fool.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

It already is my little moron. There's no First Amendment in capitalism. Got it now?

And apparently no right to privacy or due process either. Lining in Russia is so fun!

Capitalism doesn't have those either idiot. Learn it damn it!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

The First Amendment has NEVER applied to anything other than the Government. There has never been a protection for "free speech" in the private sector.

It's amazing to me how the people who constantly yell about the Constitution never really seem to understand what it means.

Not restricted to government only. Never has been.

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Note how it doesn't say "The NBA shall make no rule...."

The First Amendment restricts the power of Congress. That's it. It doesn't restrict private individuals, organizations, or companies. The First Amendment applies to the law, nothing more.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Post 1st amendment America is going to be like that huh?

It already is my little moron. There's no First Amendment in capitalism. Got it now?

And apparently no right to privacy or due process either. Lining in Russia is so fun!

Both the "right" to privacy and due process apply to our legal system, not to anything else.

For example, my (hypothetical as of now) kids don't have a "right to privacy" in my house, nor do they have "due process" if I choose to punish them.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Morals clauses aren't about being moral, they're about making money. Corporations don't have "morals", they exist only to make money, and for no other reasons.

They exist as a way to escape a contract when the person signed is reflecting badly on the brand.

Which is exactly why they are so legally shaky to enforce.

In the end this will go one of two ways.

1- Sterling gets paid an ungodly sum that makes it better to walk away than try to hang on.

2- The NBA sits every loud mouth down and tells them to shut up about it, they make public apology for Sterling and hope this all goes away by next season.

I just had a funny thought. What if the Clippers win the NBA championship? Now that could get interesting.

They're not "legally shaky" to enforce at all.

If it wasn't so shaky this would be a slam dunk case. (Badump bump, cymbal crash)

It is shaky and expensive and long and drawn out and a major distraction.

So what do you predict will be the end result?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Which is exactly why they are so legally shaky to enforce.

In the end this will go one of two ways.

1- Sterling gets paid an ungodly sum that makes it better to walk away than try to hang on.

2- The NBA sits every loud mouth down and tells them to shut up about it, they make public apology for Sterling and hope this all goes away by next season.

I just had a funny thought. What if the Clippers win the NBA championship? Now that could get interesting.

They're not "legally shaky" to enforce at all.

If it wasn't so shaky this would be a slam dunk case. (Badump bump, cymbal crash)

It is shaky and expensive and long and drawn out and a major distraction.

So what do you predict will be the end result?

There is no "case". Sterling hasn't even said if he's going to fight the league's decision, once they make it.

The end result, either way, is that he'll sell the team, and disappear back into obscurity.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It already is my little moron. There's no First Amendment in capitalism. Got it now?

And apparently no right to privacy or due process either. Lining in Russia is so fun!

Both the "right" to privacy and due process apply to our legal system, not to anything else.

For example, my (hypothetical as of now) kids don't have a "right to privacy" in my house, nor do they have "due process" if I choose to punish them.

We aren't really talking about your kids right now it was a girlfriend. But in that vein would your kids have a right to record you in your home and broadcast whatever it is you're doing on the internet? Or does your right to rule your home exclude you from what you are denying others in the home? So in other words you don't have any right to privacy, your kids don't (understandable) but you expect full privacy.

The legal system is then bypassed as far as due process, free speech and privacy are concerned and by your justification makes it just fine.

In this case you are presenting who doesn't have the right to record you in any situation and release it to the public as long as it wasn't government doing it? Government doesn't need to do anything if we are going to do it to ourselves. If we the people are going to take rights away in the name of technology and bypass the courts government just has to stand on the sidelines and cheer us on to our own destruction. After all the court of law isn't needed if we are going to go with the court of public opinion. Youtube hits are better than legal wins, it's all about getting viral.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

They're not "legally shaky" to enforce at all.

If it wasn't so shaky this would be a slam dunk case. (Badump bump, cymbal crash)

It is shaky and expensive and long and drawn out and a major distraction.

So what do you predict will be the end result?

There is no "case". Sterling hasn't even said if he's going to fight the league's decision, once they make it.

The end result, either way, is that he'll sell the team, and disappear back into obscurity.

I think he did say he was going to fight it.

But I agree he will sell but this entire issue isn't dropping his teams value it's raising it. The more the NBA want's him out the more it will cost them.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And apparently no right to privacy or due process either. Lining in Russia is so fun!

Both the "right" to privacy and due process apply to our legal system, not to anything else.

For example, my (hypothetical as of now) kids don't have a "right to privacy" in my house, nor do they have "due process" if I choose to punish them.

We aren't really talking about your kids right now it was a girlfriend. But in that vein would your kids have a right to record you in your home and broadcast whatever it is you're doing on the internet? Or does your right to rule your home exclude you from what you are denying others in the home? So in other words you don't have any right to privacy, your kids don't (understandable) but you expect full privacy.

The problem is you're confusing the court of law with the so-called "court of public opinion". "Rights" don't exist in the court of public opinion. To continue my analogy from before, let's say my kid videotaped me saying "Kill all the Jews", and posted it on the internet.

My kid doesn't have the "right" to do that, but nevertheless, my boss does have the "right" to fire me over it. The real world isn't like a court - evidence gathered illegally can still be used against you, as long as it's not the government doing it.

You know there's no restriction against illegally recorded evidence in a civil trial, right? Those restrictions on evidence, "rights" and such only apply when it's the government making the case.

The legal system is then bypassed as far as due process, free speech and privacy are concerned and by your justification makes it just fine.

We're not talking about the legal system. Donald Sterling isn't being prosecuted for a crime. He's suffering the consequences of an action that he thought wouldn't have any consequences. He was wrong.

In this case you are presenting who doesn't have the right to record you in any situation and release it to the public as long as it wasn't government doing it?

No one has the "right" to do it. But I can still face consequences for it, if someone does it.

Government doesn't need to do anything if we are going to do it to ourselves. If we the people are going to take rights away in the name of technology and bypass the courts government just has to stand on the sidelines and cheer us on to our own destruction. After all the court of law isn't needed if we are going to go with the court of public opinion. Youtube hits are better than legal wins, it's all about getting viral.

The "court of public opinion" can't send you to jail, or impose any sort of criminal punishment. The "court of public opinion" is just public opinion - and the public does have the right to their opinion. If that opinion is negative, that's the way it goes.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If it wasn't so shaky this would be a slam dunk case. (Badump bump, cymbal crash)

It is shaky and expensive and long and drawn out and a major distraction.

So what do you predict will be the end result?

There is no "case". Sterling hasn't even said if he's going to fight the league's decision, once they make it.

The end result, either way, is that he'll sell the team, and disappear back into obscurity.

I think he did say he was going to fight it.

But I agree he will sell but this entire issue isn't dropping his teams value it's raising it. The more the NBA want's him out the more it will cost them.

He has not commented, as of now, as to whether or not he'll fight it. I imagine he'll wait for the decision before commenting.

But you're wrong about the rest of it. He needs to sell right now, if he wants to make money on it. If he doesn't sell, his players will strike, his sponsors will drop off, and the Clippers will cease to be an NBA team. He doesn't have an advantage here.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Both the "right" to privacy and due process apply to our legal system, not to anything else.

For example, my (hypothetical as of now) kids don't have a "right to privacy" in my house, nor do they have "due process" if I choose to punish them.

We aren't really talking about your kids right now it was a girlfriend. But in that vein would your kids have a right to record you in your home and broadcast whatever it is you're doing on the internet? Or does your right to rule your home exclude you from what you are denying others in the home? So in other words you don't have any right to privacy, your kids don't (understandable) but you expect full privacy.

The problem is you're confusing the court of law with the so-called "court of public opinion". "Rights" don't exist in the court of public opinion. To continue my analogy from before, let's say my kid videotaped me saying "Kill all the Jews", and posted it on the internet.

My kid doesn't have the "right" to do that, but nevertheless, my boss does have the "right" to fire me over it. The real world isn't like a court - evidence gathered illegally can still be used against you, as long as it's not the government doing it.

You know there's no restriction against illegally recorded evidence in a civil trial, right? Those restrictions on evidence, "rights" and such only apply when it's the government making the case.



We're not talking about the legal system. Donald Sterling isn't being prosecuted for a crime. He's suffering the consequences of an action that he thought wouldn't have any consequences. He was wrong.

In this case you are presenting who doesn't have the right to record you in any situation and release it to the public as long as it wasn't government doing it?

No one has the "right" to do it. But I can still face consequences for it, if someone does it.

Government doesn't need to do anything if we are going to do it to ourselves. If we the people are going to take rights away in the name of technology and bypass the courts government just has to stand on the sidelines and cheer us on to our own destruction. After all the court of law isn't needed if we are going to go with the court of public opinion. Youtube hits are better than legal wins, it's all about getting viral.

The "court of public opinion" can't send you to jail, or impose any sort of criminal punishment. The "court of public opinion" is just public opinion - and the public does have the right to their opinion. If that opinion is negative, that's the way it goes.

So like I said, you have no rights. The government doesn't even need to get involved we will take our own rights away. Just give it time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We aren't really talking about your kids right now it was a girlfriend. But in that vein would your kids have a right to record you in your home and broadcast whatever it is you're doing on the internet? Or does your right to rule your home exclude you from what you are denying others in the home? So in other words you don't have any right to privacy, your kids don't (understandable) but you expect full privacy.

The problem is you're confusing the court of law with the so-called "court of public opinion". "Rights" don't exist in the court of public opinion. To continue my analogy from before, let's say my kid videotaped me saying "Kill all the Jews", and posted it on the internet.

My kid doesn't have the "right" to do that, but nevertheless, my boss does have the "right" to fire me over it. The real world isn't like a court - evidence gathered illegally can still be used against you, as long as it's not the government doing it.

You know there's no restriction against illegally recorded evidence in a civil trial, right? Those restrictions on evidence, "rights" and such only apply when it's the government making the case.



We're not talking about the legal system. Donald Sterling isn't being prosecuted for a crime. He's suffering the consequences of an action that he thought wouldn't have any consequences. He was wrong.



No one has the "right" to do it. But I can still face consequences for it, if someone does it.

Government doesn't need to do anything if we are going to do it to ourselves. If we the people are going to take rights away in the name of technology and bypass the courts government just has to stand on the sidelines and cheer us on to our own destruction. After all the court of law isn't needed if we are going to go with the court of public opinion. Youtube hits are better than legal wins, it's all about getting viral.

The "court of public opinion" can't send you to jail, or impose any sort of criminal punishment. The "court of public opinion" is just public opinion - and the public does have the right to their opinion. If that opinion is negative, that's the way it goes.

So like I said, you have no rights. The government doesn't even need to get involved we will take our own rights away. Just give it time.

Personally, I think the word "rights" is stupid. But that's not the point.

The point is, what you're describing as "taking our own rights away" is actually just other people using their "rights".

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There is no "case". Sterling hasn't even said if he's going to fight the league's decision, once they make it.

The end result, either way, is that he'll sell the team, and disappear back into obscurity.

I think he did say he was going to fight it.

But I agree he will sell but this entire issue isn't dropping his teams value it's raising it. The more the NBA want's him out the more it will cost them.

He has not commented, as of now, as to whether or not he'll fight it. I imagine he'll wait for the decision before commenting.

But you're wrong about the rest of it. He needs to sell right now, if he wants to make money on it. If he doesn't sell, his players will strike, his sponsors will drop off, and the Clippers will cease to be an NBA team. He doesn't have an advantage here.

He has said he will fight the sale, and his wife is doing so as well. Kinda crazy but they do own the team so it's going to be hard to force them out.

His players will strike and go where for a paycheck? At the most one or two of those players will find a new team the rest are worthless. The other 200-250 people in the support positions are less than worthless. And will the NBA just shut down this franchise with no replacement? Will they move it out of LA? Will they want to recapture the market they have in LA? Do they start a new team and if they do how do they buy out the Clippers contracts for arena use and vendor's?

It's much bigger than just kicking him to the curb.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The problem is you're confusing the court of law with the so-called "court of public opinion". "Rights" don't exist in the court of public opinion. To continue my analogy from before, let's say my kid videotaped me saying "Kill all the Jews", and posted it on the internet.

My kid doesn't have the "right" to do that, but nevertheless, my boss does have the "right" to fire me over it. The real world isn't like a court - evidence gathered illegally can still be used against you, as long as it's not the government doing it.

You know there's no restriction against illegally recorded evidence in a civil trial, right? Those restrictions on evidence, "rights" and such only apply when it's the government making the case.



We're not talking about the legal system. Donald Sterling isn't being prosecuted for a crime. He's suffering the consequences of an action that he thought wouldn't have any consequences. He was wrong.



No one has the "right" to do it. But I can still face consequences for it, if someone does it.



The "court of public opinion" can't send you to jail, or impose any sort of criminal punishment. The "court of public opinion" is just public opinion - and the public does have the right to their opinion. If that opinion is negative, that's the way it goes.

So like I said, you have no rights. The government doesn't even need to get involved we will take our own rights away. Just give it time.

Personally, I think the word "rights" is stupid. But that's not the point.

The point is, what you're describing as "taking our own rights away" is actually just other people using their "rights".

If having rights is stupid then the entire constitution fails. If you don't have your rights then how can you claim others do? It has to come down to nobody has any rights granted by the constitution.That's how this has to end up.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So like I said, you have no rights. The government doesn't even need to get involved we will take our own rights away. Just give it time.

Personally, I think the word "rights" is stupid. But that's not the point.

The point is, what you're describing as "taking our own rights away" is actually just other people using their "rights".

If having rights is stupid then the entire constitution fails. If you don't have your rights then how can you claim others do? It has to come down to nobody has any rights granted by the constitution.That's how this has to end up.

You misunderstand me. But it's irrelevant anyway, and the subject of a different thread.

In the context of my previous posts, "rights" means legal rights in this country.

Those rights protect us from the government, not from one another.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Personally, I think the word "rights" is stupid. But that's not the point.

The point is, what you're describing as "taking our own rights away" is actually just other people using their "rights".

If having rights is stupid then the entire constitution fails. If you don't have your rights then how can you claim others do? It has to come down to nobody has any rights granted by the constitution.That's how this has to end up.

You misunderstand me. But it's irrelevant anyway, and the subject of a different thread.

In the context of my previous posts, "rights" means legal rights in this country.

Those rights protect us from the government, not from one another.

Well then start a new thread by all means.

If your rights aren't considered legal then do we actually have them? Why have a constitution or a bill of rights if if they can be taken away by the twitter mob?

So instead of having constitutional or a bill of rights we have hashtag rights. Maybe we can reduce the constitution and the bill of rights to what pops up on twitter, kinda like our foreign policy and presidency. Legal no longer means what is actually legal let's replace that with hashtag.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

When it comes to free-speech no contract should supersede the First Amendment. This case should be tried in the court of public opinion and leave it at that. Sponsors can leave and fans can stop going to the games.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why should the league demonstrate that to you? The NBA doesn't give a shit whether or not Armchair Attorneys on message boards understand what their "rights" are.

They only have to demonstrate it to the courts, if Sterling fights it.

You understand this is entirely about public opinion and shaping it, right? I would bet most owners probably didnt have a problem with what Sterling said but could never admit to it.
So if the NBA wanted to demonstrate its rightness it would have specified the clauses Sterling violated etc. Unless they had a total incompetent like you running things.

You're right - it is entirely about public opinion.

The part you're confused about is what the "public opinion" is. The "public opinion" is already in the NBA's favor - they don't need to prove it, unless it goes to court.

You didnt bother to read the first post in this thread. Obviously.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Also, if Sterling or his wife somehow ended up retaining the team, there would no doubt be a boycott, and I would bet money that the "new" Black Panthers would show up and threaten anyone trying to watch a game.

I thought you nuts loved militias...

 

[The Rabbi]

They're not "legally shaky" to enforce at all.

If it wasn't so shaky this would be a slam dunk case. (Badump bump, cymbal crash)

It is shaky and expensive and long and drawn out and a major distraction.

So what do you predict will be the end result?

There is no "case". Sterling hasn't even said if he's going to fight the league's decision, once they make it.

The end result, either way, is that he'll sell the team, and disappear back into obscurity.

It's amazing what you think you know.
You think you know the terms of a contract you've never seen.
You think you know the contract contains a morals clause, even though you've never seen it.
You think you know what that morals clause spells out, never having seen it.
You think you Sterling's strategy for dealing with this
You think you know how a judge is going to rule in every matter.

And yet when pressed you admit you don't know any of it. What does that make your posts?