Sterling threatens to sue the NBA

[Askold]

NBA is a non-profit organisation?!?!

...That is literally the craziest thing I've heard today and I spent at least 30 minutes on 4chan.

AND there were news about North Korea today but this is still crazier.


AND after doing some research to find out if mellenORL was just trying to trick me I find out that NFL is ALSO non profit and does not pay taxes even though it makes 9 billion dollars or so per season...

[mellenORL]

Only in 'Murrica! Rawr!

Don't fret, I still get gobsmacked by the shit that goes on in this country - legally - on a daily basis, as I cruise around the net news sites and blogs.....

[Sigmaleph]

Because once again, xkcd says a necessary thing that people need pounded into their head.

Counter-PSA:

The legal right to freedom of speech (as seen in the first amendment) and the ethical principle of freedom of speech are different things. I cannot speak for Fred, but any argument I make in this thread refers to the latter and not the former.

The legal right to freedom of speech varies by jurisdiction and changes over time. It speaks of what is in fact the law and not what the law should be. As far as I know, the NBA was perfectly within their legal rights to invoke its bylaws or whatever else (but maybe it wasn't, I'm not a lawyer). That doesn't answer the question "Should people be punished for their opinions?", only "To what extent does the law allow me to punish people for their opinions"?

The ethical principle of freedom of speech, on the other hand, is the idea that we should allow people to freely express their opinions even when we don't like them, and that differences in opinion should be answered with discussion, not force (a somewhat ambiguous term, admittedly). The idea that we should allow speech we disagree with is a recognition of the fact that often in history, ideas we now recognise as good were thought to be disgusting or heretical or ridiculous, and by punishing those that voiced them rather than allowing them to speak freely we held our civilization back. At least, that's why I think it's important, I'm sure plenty of people find other reasons for it. Not the point.

Here's the thing: I personally want to live in a society that upholds the ethical principle of free speech. Partly because I have some unpopular opinions myself, partly because I know I'm not right about everything and if there's some opinion I currently find ridiculous but turns out to be correct I'd like to hear about it. "The government can't arrest you" is not enough, it's the bare minimum. If I will fired from my job for publicly stating X, and I need a job to survive, then probably I'm not going to say X. Maybe you don't think that's freedom of speech, maybe you do, but regardless of what you call it that's not a position I want to be in. And the price I have to pay for that is that I should also allow other people to say X and not be fired (and protest when that does happen, and fight so that it doesn't happen again). You can't just protect "free speech, except for those opinions I find too objectionable". Because then, the people who hold those opinions defend their own right to free speech but not my own, and then you end up in a world where who is allowed to speak depends on which opinions have enough supporters.

To have free speech, you need to have freedom from at least some consequences. The obvious stuff is not being burned at the stake as a heretic or sent to prison in Siberia. But there's also stuff that can limit your free speech without being acted on by the government, like being attacked on the street or refused service at every store in town or being fired from your job. I think that's something we should expect from a civilized society. You are free to disagree.

Disclaimer the first: I shouldn't need to say this, but I don't think racism is a good idea and don't think "well, I'm legally allowed to say it" is a valid argument.

Disclaimer the second: Throughout this post I may talk about "speech" and "opinions" interchangeably. Of course, not everything you say is an opinion, and any arguments I make are about defending thoughts you actually have, not things like lying under oath, deceptive advertising, false alarms, etc. Restrictions on such things are perfectly reasonable and don't impact freedom of speech.

[mellenORL]

Beautifully stated, Sigma. The social and mental disconnect in re freedom of expression has always bothered me.

I lost a job long ago because I bitterly criticized Reagan for not supporting an emergency bill for funding AIDS research. My employer loved Reagan, hated gays, and was very religious about God's will being done by AIDS. That was my opinion, it was not while the business was open to the public, and was part of a group conversation while we were cleaning up the place after closing. Ethically, I should most certainly should not have even been reprimanded, much less fired. But it was in Georgia during the eighties, and Georgia is a Right To Work state (meaning there are no unions and all workers can be dismissed at will, excepting 14th Amendment protections of sex, race and age).

I think Sterling is a total ass, but it may be a better scenario where his multimillion dollar contract players just tell him to fuck off and sit down on the bench, defaulting on all of their scheduled games until he sells the team or miraculously makes a sincere and convincing apology to them. Say, if he were to cuddle Magic Johnson's balls at center court while singing, "You Are So Beautiful To Me" would be a good start.

[Lt. Fred]

Well, that's pretty empty legalism.

Just my opinion.

Remember, children, free speech isn't free unless it has absolutely zero consequences!  Anarchy is your only true freedom, and totally not the dumbass high schooler of sociopolitical ideologies.

Oh man, anarchy is a frustrating concept and I have no idea how people think it would work.

I read a manifesto by an anarchist a few days ago and after he finally finished complaining about all the other belief systems because "mah freedoms" the real highlight of his rant came... He had been preaching about how anarchy has no pesky "laws or rules" and people are free to do whatever they want but he started explaining what anarchy is by explaining what "anarchy is not" and making a long list about how anarchy isn't mob rule and how violence and theft and other such things ARE NOT ANARCHY.

"...Exscuse me mister teacher man, I thought you just said that we can do whatever we want and that there are no rules. I think you said that at least eight times. Now you're telling me that I am NOT allowed to beat you up and steal your lunch in a true anarchist society."

So if even anarchists can agree that there should be some limits to what people should do would it not make sense to make some "rules" or "laws" that people agree to follow and perhaps enforce those with some people who "police" the society and so that those rules are fair to everyone we could... Uh... Maybe "vote" for those rules and and and... Anyway, you get the point.

Anarchism is actually a lot more sophisticated than that, at its best. Emma Goldman was actually a legit activist and stuff, as well s an anarchist - one of the world's first feminists. They're still wrong, but it's more complex than just "do what you like" most of the time, except Max Stirner who's just basically the Joker. For an example of a working anarchist community, I give you Revolutionary Catalonia.

Anarchism is a big deal to me. I'm not an anarchist, but I used to be. Eh, anyway.

Beautifully stated, Sigma. The social and mental disconnect in re freedom of expression has always bothered me.

I lost a job long ago because I bitterly criticized Reagan for not supporting an emergency bill for funding AIDS research. My employer loved Reagan, hated gays, and was very religious about God's will being done by AIDS. That was my opinion, it was not while the business was open to the public, and was part of a group conversation while we were cleaning up the place after closing. Ethically, I should most certainly should not have even been reprimanded, much less fired. But it was in Georgia during the eighties, and Georgia is a Right To Work state (meaning there are no unions and all workers can be dismissed at will, excepting 14th Amendment protections of sex, race and age).

See, your average person will regard this as a violation of your rights, but apparently this is just fine to Ironbite and co. Consequences!

Really?  You wanna put your money where your mouth is?

Ironbite-cause I'm seeing a bunch of people suffering for saying stupid shit.

I could, for instance, throw you in an icy dungeon thousands of miles away from civilisation, deny you food and medical help, force you to produce good for export and then shoot you in the back of the head without warning for suggesting I was a Stalin analogy and you would still argue that everyone is "free to say and think whatever you want but you're not free from the consequences of those actions". Vicious Stalinist dictatorships are just consequences - you're still free!

Moron.

How in the world does that even make any form of sense or even answers my point on how a private corporation can in fact make a move to distance itself from a repungent individual like Donald Sterling?  OH wait, forgot I'm talking to Lt. Fred.

Ironbite-who makes about as much sense as lighthorseman ever did.

Cool, so no response of any sort. Excellent.

Sick Stalin analogy to illustrate why Ironbite's false dichotomy is silly

Well save for the fact that your analogy involves numerous crimes.

Ding, ding ding! You hit the trifecta! You totally missed the point, ludicrously conflated "right" and "law" as virtually synonymous ignoring the fact that laws are often wrong - or even criminal! - and you managed to fit some semantic nit-picking in there as well! In just one sentence! Genius!

[ironbite]

As I have Lt. Fred back on iggy I'm going to assume he said something Australian.

Ironbite-possibly about bank tellers.

[Canadian Mojo]

So, you shouldn't be fired for saying "would you like some fries with that you nigger bastard?"

[I am lizard]

I think Sterling is a total ass, but it may be a better scenario where his multimillion dollar contract players just tell him to fuck off and sit down on the bench, defaulting on all of their scheduled games until he sells the team or miraculously makes a sincere and convincing apology to them. Say, if he were to cuddle Magic Johnson's balls at center court while singing, "You Are So Beautiful To Me" would be a good start.

Then they would still be infringing on his freedom of speech by forcing him to either effectively resign or withdraw his original speech.

Offense, but this is actually a horrible idea, it either lets him keep his multi-million dollar job for longer or makes him have to give up some of his free speech.

[mellenORL]

How would he continue to make that kind of money if his players boycotted every game until he sold the team? And certainly, Clippers fans would jump all up in that bandwagon. He'd be ruined. I wasn't exactly serious about him serenading and sac licking Magic Johnson.

[Sigmaleph]

So, you shouldn't be fired for saying "would you like some fries with that you nigger bastard?"

If you're dealing with a customer? Yes. Not because of racism per se, but because of poor customer service. Your ability to freely express your opinions is not meaningfully limited by being polite to customers.

[mellenORL]

So, you shouldn't be fired for saying "would you like some fries with that you nigger bastard?"

<I'm too slow to post today! Acknowledging that Sigma ninja'ed me on the first point  >
This one is a bit clearer, since it is an employee verbally insulting a paying customer. You fire someone who does that because they are intentionally damaging the business just to satisfy their need to express their (totally fucked up) opinion. So, if we changed the rude employee's outburst to something like, "Enjoy your fucking burger, you triggering elitist scumbag antitheist!", it's still clearly an unacceptable act that the business has a business-only (cold blooded reasoning) interest to resolve by firing the employee for verbally assaulting a paying customer.

If the employee speaks within hearing of a customer, discussing their support of something the customer or the employer dislikes, that employee should not have to worry. They were not intentionally trying to insult or provoke anyone, just stating their opinion in a conversation that was not intentionally meant to be overheard. If the employer observes that this employee is in a habit of loudly stating their possibly controversial opinions in a way that customers or other employees find distracting or annoying, the employer certainly should have the right to demand the employee cease from doing that, or be free to reassign that problem employee to the back of the house, or some other relatively isolated work area.

[I am lizard]

How would he continue to make that kind of money if his players boycotted every game until he sold the team? And certainly, Clippers fans would jump all up in that bandwagon. He'd be ruined.

This would cause the NBA as a whole economic stress due to loss of income (not to mention the people who's jobs depend on the stadiums income).

Also, why are you saying that you think free speech is punishable now?
Earlier in the mozilla thread you were saying we shouldn't boycott someone just because they have a different opinion, what made you change?

[Witchyjoshy]

God dammit Lizard stop editing your post so often. XD

You're worse than I am.  And I'm bad enough as it is.

[m52nickerson]

Because once again, xkcd says a necessary thing that people need pounded into their head.

Counter-PSA:

The legal right to freedom of speech (as seen in the first amendment) and the ethical principle of freedom of speech are different things. I cannot speak for Fred, but any argument I make in this thread refers to the latter and not the former.

The legal right to freedom of speech varies by jurisdiction and changes over time. It speaks of what is in fact the law and not what the law should be. As far as I know, the NBA was perfectly within their legal rights to invoke its bylaws or whatever else (but maybe it wasn't, I'm not a lawyer). That doesn't answer the question "Should people be punished for their opinions?", only "To what extent does the law allow me to punish people for their opinions"?

The ethical principle of freedom of speech, on the other hand, is the idea that we should allow people to freely express their opinions even when we don't like them, and that differences in opinion should be answered with discussion, not force (a somewhat ambiguous term, admittedly). The idea that we should allow speech we disagree with is a recognition of the fact that often in history, ideas we now recognise as good were thought to be disgusting or heretical or ridiculous, and by punishing those that voiced them rather than allowing them to speak freely we held our civilization back. At least, that's why I think it's important, I'm sure plenty of people find other reasons for it. Not the point.

Here's the thing: I personally want to live in a society that upholds the ethical principle of free speech. Partly because I have some unpopular opinions myself, partly because I know I'm not right about everything and if there's some opinion I currently find ridiculous but turns out to be correct I'd like to hear about it. "The government can't arrest you" is not enough, it's the bare minimum. If I will fired from my job for publicly stating X, and I need a job to survive, then probably I'm not going to say X. Maybe you don't think that's freedom of speech, maybe you do, but regardless of what you call it that's not a position I want to be in. And the price I have to pay for that is that I should also allow other people to say X and not be fired (and protest when that does happen, and fight so that it doesn't happen again). You can't just protect "free speech, except for those opinions I find too objectionable". Because then, the people who hold those opinions defend their own right to free speech but not my own, and then you end up in a world where who is allowed to speak depends on which opinions have enough supporters.

To have free speech, you need to have freedom from at least some consequences. The obvious stuff is not being burned at the stake as a heretic or sent to prison in Siberia. But there's also stuff that can limit your free speech without being acted on by the government, like being attacked on the street or refused service at every store in town or being fired from your job. I think that's something we should expect from a civilized society. You are free to disagree.

Disclaimer the first: I shouldn't need to say this, but I don't think racism is a good idea and don't think "well, I'm legally allowed to say it" is a valid argument.

Disclaimer the second: Throughout this post I may talk about "speech" and "opinions" interchangeably. Of course, not everything you say is an opinion, and any arguments I make are about defending thoughts you actually have, not things like lying under oath, deceptive advertising, false alarms, etc. Restrictions on such things are perfectly reasonable and don't impact freedom of speech.

I can see your point, but in Sterling's case he knew as a team owner he was expected to follow the leagues code of conduct.  This is not like mellenORL's situation.  This is like having an employee that stands on the corner shouting racist hatefully things while wearing his work uniform.  That's going to get a person fired, and rightly so.

You also have to take into account that massive amount of other people this effects.  If Sterling keeps the team the Clippers are going to be in trouble.  Lower ticket sales is going to hurt the arena they play in, and the workers there. 

You are not going to force players to play for the team, or companies to advertise during their games.  See that is the other side of freedom.  So while I understand allowing a difference of opinions, but when an opinion is so clearly wrong I thing the more important aspect is the freedom to stand up and say that some thing are not going to be tolerated.

[Witchyjoshy]

I suppose it's worth noting that an employee can take off his uniform and is no longer associated with his company until he puts it back on, but an owner is always associated with their company.