Donald Sterling Banned for Life

[Golfingdad]

Sterling's girlfriend admitted to recording him without his knowledge because she was considering quitting her job with him and wanted to have leverage to protect herself.  "Somehow" her friend got a copy of the recording and sold it to TMZ.   She's a parasite and so are her friends, the new cars and jewelry weren't enough so she recorded him making racial comments so she could extort him for more, but her friend beat her to the money.

None of this makes what Sterling said right, but it does concern me that these recordings were allowed to be aired and used against him without his consent.  This case is no longer about Sterling, as he's not defendable but it is about one's expectations to rights of privacy.

If one can't expect privacy even in their own home, then I think we've really lost the guiding principles of what our founding fathers gave their lives for and our military risk their lives to preserve.  This combined with PA's Supreme court decision which states that police officers no longer require a warrant to search a vehicle that is stopped and immigration check points that are 50 miles from US borders are just additional steps in us having no more freedom than those in communist countries.

I don't think this really has anything to do with Sterling's rights.  It's not like anybody is trying to prosecute him or arrest him based on illegally obtained information.  The NBA (a private entity that, although not one person, also has rights) just doesn't want to associate with him anymore.  It's like the business with the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign on the door.  Or last weekend, there was a story about Ben Affleck getting barred from playing blackjack at the Hard Rock casino.  He didn't do anything illegal, he just counted cards and played too well for their tastes, so they told him to go away.  That was perfectly within their rights.

Heck, the NBA could have (and frankly, should have) disassociated themselves with Sterling long ago.  Long before these tapes ever came out.  They would have technically had less "evidence" to do so than they do now, yet still been within their rights to do so.

The thing you mention about PA police officers, now that's a whole different story.  But this Sterling situation bears no resemblance, IMO.

[saevel25]

I don't think this really has anything to do with Sterling's rights.  It's not like anybody is trying to prosecute him or arrest him based on illegally obtained information.  The NBA (a private entity that, although not one person, also has rights) just doesn't want to associate with him anymore.  It's like the business with the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign on the door.  Or last weekend, there was a story about Ben Affleck getting barred from playing blackjack at the Hard Rock casino.  He didn't do anything illegal, he just counted cards and played too well for their tastes, so they told him to go away.  That was perfectly within their rights.

Heck, the NBA could have (and frankly, should have) disassociated themselves with Sterling long ago.  Long before these tapes ever came out.  They would have technically had less "evidence" to do so than they do now, yet still been within their rights to do so.

The thing you mention about PA police officers, now that's a whole different story.  But this Sterling situation bears no resemblance, IMO.

I would agree with this position. I do not agree with how this went down, but it shouldn't change the fact that his actions and words put the NBA in a position to act. The NBA is a private entity and as such doesn't have to concern it self from where these comments came from as long as they are authentic.

I am wondering though. Lets say that the people who tapped Sterling never released it to the public. Does the NBA ban Sterling if those people just brought the tape directly to them, or do they sweep it under the rug? Did the choice of making this public push the NBA to act more than the actual racial comments?

[Golfingdad]

I am wondering though. Lets say that the people who tapped Sterling never released it to the public. Does the NBA ban Sterling if those people just brought the tape directly to them, or do they sweep it under the rug? Did the choice of making this public push the NBA to act more than the actual racial comments?

Hmmmm ... interesting question.  If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on "under the rug."  Obviously it's just a guess, but considering the fact that they never acted on any of the previously known info on him, I'd say the publicity played a huge part in this.

[Jeremie Boop]

Hmmmm ... interesting question.  If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on "under the rug."  Obviously it's just a guess, but considering the fact that they never acted on any of the previously known info on him, I'd say the publicity played a huge part in this.

I agree it wouldn't been addressed as it has been. The only reason they did anything is because of the public backlash the NBA would have received otherwise. People typically couldn't care less what someone's private views and values are, it's only when it becomes public that it's a problem.

[newtogolf]

I don't think this really has anything to do with Sterling's rights.  It's not like anybody is trying to prosecute him or arrest him based on illegally obtained information.  The NBA (a private entity that, although not one person, also has rights) just doesn't want to associate with him anymore.  It's like the business with the "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign on the door.  Or last weekend, there was a story about Ben Affleck getting barred from playing blackjack at the Hard Rock casino.  He didn't do anything illegal, he just counted cards and played too well for their tastes, so they told him to go away.  That was perfectly within their rights.

Heck, the NBA could have (and frankly, should have) disassociated themselves with Sterling long ago.  Long before these tapes ever came out.  They would have technically had less "evidence" to do so than they do now, yet still been within their rights to do so.

The thing you mention about PA police officers, now that's a whole different story.  But this Sterling situation bears no resemblance, IMO.

I don't think you understand the ramifications of allowing private conversations that were recorded illegally to be used in any form.  IMO, V, V's friend that sold the recordings and TMZ should be arrested for illegal wiretapping, broadcasting recordings without legal consent and all parties sued for damages.

I don't know about in California, but you can't refuse service to anyone here in NY unless they are white, heterosexual and Christian or you risk being sued for discrimination, ask the photographer and wedding cake bakers who were sued for refusing service to gay couples.

What the NBA should have done isn't in question, I agree with you but they didn't act in the past when the evidence was much more substantial and less controversial.  The fact they decided to now, based on an illegally recorded private conversation between a man and his girlfriend feeds into this whole TMZ insanity we live in today.

This and PA  are completely related, it speaks to our diminished rights to privacy.  On top of illegal searches of your vehicle, NSA spying on all electronic communications, you now have to watch what you say to loved ones in fear that a in a moment of poor judgment you get recorded saying something that could ruin your professional or personal life.   Seems to me our current elected officials have never read the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

[Mooka]

I'll keep it simple, I don't see why no one takes issue with comments (or at least replys) such as this (and I'm not calling Jeremy Boop a racist, bigot or anyting. I just would like people such as himself to not think so superficially)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I agree with everything you said here, except about the possibility that it could apply to Sterling.  So since it sounds like you don't have all of the backstory, here is a quick rundown of the things he's done or at least been accused of in the past (not counting the comments from last week):

When Elgin Baylor suggested he interview a black coach for a vacancy one time, he responded with "Personally, I would like to have a white southern coach coaching poor black players." Yet he still hired a black coach... Not saying this comment isn't wrong though.

Hiring a black coach doesn't mean squat. Hiring a black coach meant he thought he was the best man for the job, not more or less. Furthermore, because this subject runs deep, it's a matter of a superiority complex. Donald Sterling is still signing the checks, he still makes the final decisions, he still runs his idea of a "plantation." As long is this is in place, it doesn't matter who he hires, dates, associates with. As long as he still feels like he's the run running the show, all is fine and well. To clarify, plantation owners bought and sold blacks not only because they thought they were not worthy of being free as individuals but because they saw value in their ability to work. They were priced and sold accordingly. Plantation owners also did not care that "our" women were black when they exploited and raped them. It's the feeling of power that ran through their blood as well as the disdain for another race.

He was sued in 2003 for refusing to rent his apartments to blacks and latinos  <---- This would be more of a prejudice than straight up racism. Though I see your point.

So why was he showing prejudice towards them? Because they were poor? Was it because they like baseball? Or was it because they were black or Latino? Sounds and is racist to me. Sorry you see differently.

He bought an apartment building, noticed it smelled bad, and said "that's becaue of all the blacks in this building, they smell, they're not clean." <--- this is old school thinking, my grandmother is 85 and thinks the same way. She doesn't dislike blacks though, she's just got this misconception of them. Definitely offensive though.

A lot of old-School is racist school to me. And this is both sides of the coin (Black and White). Sorry, and I don't mean to offend you or your grandmother, but I would say she is probably racist. There is no misconception of black people. I'll give you a misconception: French people don't smell so great because they don't wear deodorant. That to me is a misconception. But the place doesn't smell good because it has blacks and Latinos that live there, that's either racist or extremely borderline. Please clarify what you mean by old-school or misconception because it doesn't make sense to me.

[Jeremie Boop]

Hiring a black coach doesn't mean squat. Hiring a black coach meant he thought he was the best man for the job, not more or less.

The fact that he was able to recognize that the person was the best one for the job indicates at least the ability to put aside personal ideas to make the right decision.

So why was he showing prejudice towards them? Because they were poor? Was it because they like baseball? Or was it because they were black or Latino? Sounds and is racist to me. Sorry you see differently.

I see fine lines between prejudice and racism, but as many people like to point, out what do I know. I'm a white man and as such I apparently know nothing. There's no way I've been on the other side, even though I've lived in an area where I was the minority and treated differently because of that.

A lot of old-School is racist school to me. And this is both sides of the coin (Black and White). Sorry, and I don't mean to offend you or your grandmother, but I would say she is probably racist. There is no misconception of black people. I'll give you a misconception: French people don't smell so great because they don't wear deodorant. That to me is a misconception. But the place doesn't smell good because it has blacks and Latinos that live there, that's either racist or extremely borderline. Please clarify what you mean by old-school or misconception because it doesn't make sense to me.

Old school/misconception in that she only knows what she was taught/told because she had never actually been in a black persons house to know the truth. This is the exact same thing as people thinking french people stink because they don't use deodorant, or thinking a person with a lot of cats is crazy/has a smelly home.

We obviously are going to not agree, but then again I don't expect that. It doesn't offend me that you think my grandmother is racist, because you don't know her well enough to really know any better, you are taking a little information you've received in this thread and jumping to what you feel is a logical assumption. Just like if someone were to see a white woman clutch her purse closer to herself as a large black man passes her. First instinct is that she's racist, but what if we were able to see that she does that whenever any large man passes her? Or what if she had a purse snatched by a large black man in the past? Most people take small bits of information and extrapolate our own ideas of what it means, it's human nature.

[newtogolf]

Hiring a black coach doesn't mean squat. Hiring a black coach meant he thought he was the best man for the job, not more or less.

I disagree, when racism and discrimination were at its worst a minority coach would have not been hired, even if they were the best man for the job.  When Affirmative Action was in place a minority would be hired even if they weren't the best if the quotas weren't met.

Today we know that when a minority gets the job it's because they were the best person for it and if they don't, except possibly in some areas of the deep south, it's because they weren't.  I'd say that's progress and means a lot.

[Golfingdad]

I disagree, when racism and discrimination were at its worst a minority coach would have not been hired, even if they were the best man for the job.  When Affirmative Action was in place a minority would be hired even if they weren't the best if the quotas weren't met.

Today we know that when a minority gets the job it's because they were the best person for it and if they don't, except possibly in some areas of the deep south, it's because they weren't.  I'd say that's progress and means a lot.

I think @Mooka 's point was that Donald Sterling hiring a black coach doesn't mean squat in regards to his alleged racist ways.  I don't think he was speaking to anything more than that.

It's like the politicians (or whoever) who use the line (that's since become a joke to mock them) that they can't be racist because they have a black friend.  Donald Sterling could say "How could I be a racist?  I have black employees."  Mooka is saying (I think) that that doesn't mean squat.  And I agree with him.

BTW, @Jeremie Boop ... don't take this as a "challenge" or assume any nefarious tone behind it, it's just a general question:  What is the difference between prejudiced and racist?  Aren't they one in the same?

[jamo]

Sterling's girlfriend admitted to recording him without his knowledge because she was considering quitting her job with him and wanted to have leverage to protect herself.  "Somehow" her friend got a copy of the recording and sold it to TMZ.   She's a parasite and so are her friends, the new cars and jewelry weren't enough so she recorded him making racial comments so she could extort him for more, but her friend beat her to the money. None of this makes what Sterling said right, but it does concern me that these recordings were allowed to be aired and used against him without his consent.  This case is no longer about Sterling, as he's not defendable but it is about one's expectations to rights of privacy. If one can't expect privacy even in their own home, then I think we've really lost the guiding principles of what our founding fathers gave their lives for and our military risk their lives to preserve.  This combined with PA's Supreme court decision which states that police officers no longer require a warrant to search a vehicle that is stopped and immigration check points that are 50 miles from US borders are just additional steps in us having no more freedom than those in communist countries.

So what should have happened?

[Jeremie Boop]

BTW, @Jeremie Boop ... don't take this as a "challenge" or assume any nefarious tone behind it, it's just a general question:  What is the difference between prejudiced and racist?  Aren't they one in the same?

Prejudice is having preconceived notions about a person/people. Being racist means you hate someone based solely on their race/skin color. Prejudice can be positive or negative without being about race.

[Golfingdad]

Prejudice is having preconceived notions about a person/people. Being racist means you hate someone based solely on their race/skin color. Prejudice can be positive or negative without being about race.

Thanks!

[newtogolf]

So what should have happened?

TMZ should have refused to play the recording until it verified that it was obtained legally.

Given that isn't possible now, the NBA should meet and review the behavior of Sterling without any bias or influence of the illegal recording.  If they determine that his past history of racially biased comments and actions warrants a lifetime ban they should uphold it.  I personally believe the past actions of the Sterling's are far more disgusting than the illegally recorded comments TMZ paid V's friend to acquire.

[phan52]

Against my better judgment of staying out of this thread ... I just can't help but point out that I am reminded of a recent thread from football season.

I find it perplexing that, generally, the same group of individuals who keep shouting "RACISM IS RACISM!!!" when they see one black guy at a basketball game with an obscure, but alleged racist symbol on his person, don't seem to have a problem with 70,000 people showing up at a football game with a much less obscure racist word on their person.

And in some cases, it seems they've been defending those people's rights to continue with that behavior.

Let me know when you think it's time for you to worry about being stopped and frisked in Manhattan, or being confronted and end up dead for "walking while black" in the wrong neighborhood.

The idea that Jay Z is racist and anti-semitic because of some jewelry is laughable. His mentors are all Jewish men. Besides, racism and bigotry are two completely different things. And the comparison to the name "Redskins" for an NFL team is, frankly, naive.

[Gunther]

Let me know when you think it's time for you to worry about being stopped and frisked in Manhattan, or being confronted and end up dead for "walking while black" in the wrong neighborhood.

Stop and frisk took hundreds of illegal guns off the street and it was not racially motivated; economic profiling would be more fair. There's a guy in Detroit who was almost killed because he was white recently, hit a kid with his car and while rendering aid, was beat to within an inch of his life. Point is, racism occurs from all angles and it shouldn't be tolerated or understood ever.

[phan52]

Stop and frisk took hundreds of illegal guns off the street and it was not racially motivated; economic profiling would be more fair. There's a guy in Detroit who was almost killed because he was white recently, hit a kid with his car and while rendering aid, was beat to within an inch of his life.

Point is, racism occurs from all angles and it shouldn't be tolerated or understood ever.

Not racially motivated? Have you not heard the testimony of the police themselves who did the stopping? It was ALL about race.

85% of the stops were of blacks and hispanics,while they makeup about 50% of the population. In one year, the number of stops involving young black men EXCEEDED the city’s population of young black men. Meanwhile, a gun was found on 1.9% of the people who were stopped. That's a good enough reason to intimidate an entire group of people from just walking down the street? Seriously, you offer up an anecdote about one guy, while there were approximately 700,000 stops in NYC in 2011 and 85% of them were black or hispanic?

[Golfingdad]

Let me know when you think it's time for you to worry about being stopped and frisked in Manhattan, or being confronted and end up dead for "walking while black" in the wrong neighborhood.

The idea that Jay Z is racist and anti-semitic because of some jewelry is laughable. His mentors are all Jewish men. Besides, racism and bigotry are two completely different things. And the comparison to the name "Redskins" for an NFL team is, frankly, naive.

Sorry, but to be perfectly honest @phan52 ... I don't understand what you are saying.  Because I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of this argument, but this post sort of sounds like you're disagreeing/arguing with me.  Can you elaborate?

[Gunther]

Not racially motivated? Have you not heard the testimony of the police themselves who did the stopping? It was ALL about race. 85% of the stops were of blacks and hispanics,while they makeup about 50% of the population. In one year, the number of stops involving young black men EXCEEDED the city’s population of young black men. Meanwhile, a gun was found on 1.9% of the people who were stopped. That's a good enough reason to intimidate an entire group of people from just walking down the street? Seriously, you offer up an anecdote about one guy, while there were approximately 700,000 stops in NYC in 2011 and 85% of them were black or hispanic?

Give me the pctgs of arrests by racial group and if not proportionate, I'll change my tune. The anecdote was in reference to ur comment about being afraid to walk down the street. I thought u meant blacks were afraid to walk in white neighborhoods for fear of harrassment or worse.