Sterling and the Loss of the 1st Amendment

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it’s a demonstration of your ignorance of a fundamental Constitutional principle: First Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government entities and other public sector law or policy making bodies, not private individuals, companies, or organizations, such as the NBA and its owners.

Consequently there is no ‘loss’ of the First Amendment.

So the 1st only applies to the gov't? You are suggesting the American people have never had freedom of speech?
Yet you call me ignorant. Someone (**cough, cough, you, cough, cough**) should read the 9th. It clearly points out that with the exception of the 10th-as it applies to the gov't- the other rights are to be retained by the People, like the first.

Did you study cause and effect in grade school? Same principle.

But if you are certain you are right...go to work tomorrow, call your boss a commie-douchebag-*****-boi. When you get fired...try suing them for abridging your 1st Amendment rights.

Exactly. Better yet make comment on how all these stupid *******, who make you millions, shouldn't buy what you sell? You'll be promoted to panhandler instantly, just like he was.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am well aware of his and the team's financial status. Actually, I heard the team could sell for a billion.

But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how wealthy he is. An American is an American, no matter how wealthy or poor, and should thus have their rights protected.
It is the thought of banning him and forcing him to sell the team that galls me, especially because we apparently live in a country where the 1st has never been violated...

What part of the NBA being a private business confuses you? How has his 1st Amendment rights been abridged?

In that philosophy, Commissioner Silver is a CEO, the players and coaches are employees, and owners are like investors. Can a private business force an investor to sell his stock after it has already been bought, fine him, and ban him from that business forever?

You don’t understand.

Commissioner Silver is acting in accordance with the NBA constitution, a constitution that gives him the authority to do exactly what he did, a constitution that authorizes the other owners to force Sterling out, and a constitution that Sterling agreed to abide by as a condition of becoming an NBA owner.

Again, this is a private entity, made up of private companies that can draw up bylaws, constitutions, and contractual agreements anyway they wish, and subject members to any punitive measure the organization deems appropriate, however unwarranted and capricious you might perceive it to be.

It’s call the right to free association, the part of the First Amendment that’s relevant in this case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As the title reads, the entire Sterling case is a demonstration of the loss of freedom of speech in America and of the entirely lop-sided racial bias in the country.

No, it’s a demonstration of your ignorance of a fundamental Constitutional principle: First Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government entities and other public sector law or policy making bodies, not private individuals, companies, or organizations, such as the NBA and its owners.

Consequently there is no ‘loss’ of the First Amendment.

So the 1st only applies to the gov't? You are suggesting the American people have never had freedom of speech?
Yet you call me ignorant. Someone (**cough, cough, you, cough, cough**) should read the 9th. It clearly points out that with the exception of the 10th-as it applies to the gov't- the other rights are to be retained by the People, like the first.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance of the Constitution.

The American people have the right to free speech only in the context of the relationship between the people and their government, where government is prohibited from placing unwarranted restrictions on the right to free expression, by subjecting citizens to state-sanctioned punitive measures such as fines and imprisonment.

The NBA is not a ‘government,’ it is not subject to Constitutional restrictions, where its actions are protected by the First Amendment’s right to free association. (See, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000)).

Consequently, Sterling’s right to free speech is not being ‘violated,’ he remains at liberty to exhibit this ignorance and hate of African-Americans, absent being subject to punitive measures by the state.

 

[Howey]

As the title reads, the entire Sterling case is a demonstration of the loss of freedom of speech in America and of the entirely lop-sided racial bias in the country.

So Sterling made some bad, questionable, and racist statements. So what? If you take offense, boycott his games and start a movement or something. But to ban a man from the NBA and fine him 2.5 million for exercising our freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st is outrageous! If those in the public spotlight are no longer allowed to use the 1st, I ask how long will we have before ours is gone?
Also, I beg the reader to consider the question, what if Sterling were black, and he made anti-white comments? I'll tell you. The president wouldn't get involved, the team wouldn't act like they have, and you bet the Commissioner wouldn't be issuing a lifetime ban. In fact, there would be greater outrage if the Commissioner did order a ban placed on the black owner.

The evidence clearly points to a serious flaw in our society as it stands today.

That's what's great about America. You have the right to free speech. You also have the right to suffer the consequences.

 

[auditor0007]

As the title reads, the entire Sterling case is a demonstration of the loss of freedom of speech in America and of the entirely lop-sided racial bias in the country.

So Sterling made some bad, questionable, and racist statements. So what? If you take offense, boycott his games and start a movement or something. But to ban a man from the NBA and fine him 2.5 million for exercising our freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st is outrageous! If those in the public spotlight are no longer allowed to use the 1st, I ask how long will we have before ours is gone?
Also, I beg the reader to consider the question, what if Sterling were black, and he made anti-white comments? I'll tell you. The president wouldn't get involved, the team wouldn't act like they have, and you bet the Commissioner wouldn't be issuing a lifetime ban. In fact, there would be greater outrage if the Commissioner did order a ban placed on the black owner.

The evidence clearly points to a serious flaw in our society as it stands today.

I am so sick of hearing this stupid argument about first amendment rights with this man. This has nothing to do with his first amendment rights. The idiot has the right to say anything he wants. Do you see the government coming in and taking him away? Is the government fining him? No! That's because he has the right to say any stupid shit he wants.

What this is about is the fact that he has disgraced the NBA and almost certainly has a contract with the NBA as a franchisee that calls for the loss of his franchise should he do something that is detrimental to the league. If you own a McDonald's franchise or any franchise, it is very likely you will be required to sign a contract that states that you must follow certain rules, and if you do not follow those rules, you the parent company has the right to take away your franchise. This is basic business law.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no first amendment issue involved in this situation. The Government isn't attempting to punish anyone for speaking.

 

[auditor0007]

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Especially when a so-called "president" puts his foot in things in which government has no constitutional role.

Any indication the government is coming to take Mr. Sterling away? Didn't think so.

 

[auditor0007]

Gotta watch out when you sign the dotted line.....

Bingo!!!

 

[Howey]

Man, I'll tell ya. The right wing has certainly come up with some zeros, oops I mean heroes lately.

Zimmerman

Richardson

Bundy

Sterling

and of course The Pootin.

All racists and bigots. Yet they cry when they get called out.

 

[auditor0007]

As the title reads, the entire Sterling case is a demonstration of the loss of freedom of speech in America and of the entirely lop-sided racial bias in the country.

So Sterling made some bad, questionable, and racist statements. So what? If you take offense, boycott his games and start a movement or something. But to ban a man from the NBA and fine him 2.5 million for exercising our freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st is outrageous! If those in the public spotlight are no longer allowed to use the 1st, I ask how long will we have before ours is gone?
Also, I beg the reader to consider the question, what if Sterling were black, and he made anti-white comments? I'll tell you. The president wouldn't get involved, the team wouldn't act like they have, and you bet the Commissioner wouldn't be issuing a lifetime ban. In fact, there would be greater outrage if the Commissioner did order a ban placed on the black owner.

The evidence clearly points to a serious flaw in our society as it stands today.

No one from the government hung him. What he said cost him his team and his position. That's in the rules and he knew it when he bought the team. Welcome to actions, and words, have consequences.

Yay, not everyone is a blithering idiot here. This is about business, not the first amendment.

 

[auditor0007]

None of it is worth the loss of free speech - especially in private.

Who lost their right to free speech?

 

[auditor0007]

Try working for Wal-Mart and posting discouraging remarks about work on Facebook, unemployment awaits...

You mean they can fire you for saying something on Facebook? OMG, I never knew, lol.

 

[auditor0007]

I am well aware of his and the team's financial status. Actually, I heard the team could sell for a billion.

But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how wealthy he is. An American is an American, no matter how wealthy or poor, and should thus have their rights protected.
It is the thought of banning him and forcing him to sell the team that galls me, especially because we apparently live in a country where the 1st has never been violated...

What part of the NBA being a private business confuses you? How has his 1st Amendment rights been abridged?

In that philosophy, Commissioner Silver is a CEO, the players and coaches are employees, and owners are like investors. Can a private business force an investor to sell his stock after it has already been bought, fine him, and ban him from that business forever?

He's a franchisee. Got that. He has an obligation to not **** things up for the parent company. If he does, he can lose his franchise, which is exactly what is going to happen.

 

[auditor0007]

But you have no issue with Obama condemning him?
And speaking your mind is business, not free speech?

He should be condemned, for being ******* stupid. If you make loads of cash having am bunch of ******* play with a ball, you don't get caught on tape saying don't bring the ******* to watch. It's pretty simple actually.

And there is no free speech in business. You work for the man and you follow his rules. You can speak your mind when you aren't on the clock but that doesn't mean you'll have a job in the morning. That's not part of the deal.

I never said he was wrong, just that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

When you grow up, you may have a better understanding of business and contracts.

 

[Nutz]

Try working for Wal-Mart and posting discouraging remarks about work on Facebook, unemployment awaits...

You mean they can fire you for saying something on Facebook? OMG, I never knew, lol.

They can fire you for what you post on USMB!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's going to get worse before it gets better.

Especially when a so-called "president" puts his foot in things in which government has no constitutional role.

Obviously you’re as ignorant as the OP.

Nothing is getting ‘worse.’

Otherwise your post is ridiculous partisan nonsense.

 

[MikeK]

As the title reads, the entire Sterling case is a demonstration of the loss of freedom of speech in America and of the entirely lop-sided racial bias in the country.

So Sterling made some bad, questionable, and racist statements. So what? If you take offense, boycott his games and start a movement or something. But to ban a man from the NBA and fine him 2.5 million for exercising our freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st is outrageous! If those in the public spotlight are no longer allowed to use the 1st, I ask how long will we have before ours is gone?
Also, I beg the reader to consider the question, what if Sterling were black, and he made anti-white comments? I'll tell you. The president wouldn't get involved, the team wouldn't act like they have, and you bet the Commissioner wouldn't be issuing a lifetime ban. In fact, there would be greater outrage if the Commissioner did order a ban placed on the black owner.

The evidence clearly points to a serious flaw in our society as it stands today.

I agree with you about the violation in principle of our free speech tradition. The problem is while we are immune to government interference with speech or expression that First Amendment protection does not extend to private entities, such as the NBA.

 

[Barb]

Maybe you should look into the contracts he signed? He cut a deal, and he fucked up, on tape no less. That's business in America, not Free Speech. He spoke his mind, and it cost him, in a big way, and the government has not a damn thing to do with what's happening to him, not a tiny little bit.

But you have no issue with Obama condemning him?
And speaking your mind is business, not free speech?

He should be condemned, for being ******* stupid. If you make loads of cash having am bunch of ******* play with a ball, you don't get caught on tape saying don't bring the ******* to watch. It's pretty simple actually.

And there is no free speech in business. You work for the man and you follow his rules. You can speak your mind when you aren't on the clock but that doesn't mean you'll have a job in the morning. That's not part of the deal.

Didn't we all just get done with this same conversation (about contractual restrictions) over the duck dynasty dude?

 

[CorvusRexus]

No, it’s a demonstration of your ignorance of a fundamental Constitutional principle: First Amendment jurisprudence applies only to government entities and other public sector law or policy making bodies, not private individuals, companies, or organizations, such as the NBA and its owners.

Consequently there is no ‘loss’ of the First Amendment.

So the 1st only applies to the gov't? You are suggesting the American people have never had freedom of speech?
Yet you call me ignorant. Someone (**cough, cough, you, cough, cough**) should read the 9th. It clearly points out that with the exception of the 10th-as it applies to the gov't- the other rights are to be retained by the People, like the first.

CorvusRexus, dumb as a damn brick. Idiot, the government isn't doing anything in this case. What this is is a racist asshole getting is spanked by the corporation whose rules he agreed to. It's business, not politics, or religion, or even his civil rights. He has those, still intact, but what he doesn't have is a team anymore because the people who truly control it just tossed his butt out the door, and they are allowed to do so, and he knows it, but he will sue anyway. As an owner, he's not allowed to say such crap, it's bad for the league which is why he is gone, gone, gone, and it's all perfectly legal...

It is clear none of you understand how I often work.
I say something and provide arguments that clearly do not hold up- presently. I hold a debate that runs around and around in circles, dancing around the point I am making, the point that would prove all my arguments, the point I actually think should be true.
In case you haven't figured it out, I am saying the first needs to be changed. Changed to protect freedom of speech in all areas from all quarters. Hell, saying you want to shoot American soldiers and shoot Obama is not even treason or punishable (Article 3, Section 3), but saying you don't want somebody hanging around people of a different skin color gets you banned from a league and turned into a national pariah!
Freedom of speech is not protection from the government, it is protection from men taking away your right to voice an opinion.

 

[HenryBHough]

In order to have First Amendment protection one must first have a constitution to amend.

That having gone missing, where's the beef?