What contractual obligation did he violate? Where does he have a contractual obligation to not talk privately about race in the privacy of his home? Please do not stonewall.
Note that the objection here is whether the contract actually covers Sterling's situation. The author seems quite happy with the concept that the NBA could force Sterling to sell if he did indeed violate the terms.
Show me an example of a contract where a person will be forced to sell their property due discussing race in a private and personal discussion.
That time that black woman ended up owning the Klan?
They can ban his team from playing in the NBA, they can not take the team. McDonald's can prevent you from using their logo but they cant take your employees, your restaurant or your ownership of the business. they can only take the name and any sort of support they provide. Get your facts straight before you preach to me how "frustrating I am". They can destroy his business but they cant take his personal property because he said something offensive. If you believe they should, I want your house because you offend me.
Except we don't have any sort of legal agreement whereby I have to conduct myself in a manner that reflects well on you. You're making a whole lot of bad comparisons.
In article 13 of the franchising agreement, it would have to be proved by the NBA, but by alienating sponsors and the fan base, he could be 'failing to meet his contractual obligations'. Hopefully the NBA actually has a case for this, which remains to be seen.
Alienating people is not failing to meet a contractual obligation. There no legal agreement between Sterling and the NBA where it prohibits or denies him from having private and personal discussions. The contents of those discussions are irrelevant unless he willfully brings harm to the NBA. The NBA must prove he meant to harm the NBA. As far as forcing him to sell, Silver did nothing more than placate people who wanted vengeance. My example stands until you can prove what part of the contract Sterling failed to obligate.
If you do some research, the sponsors are still liable for paying the Clippers despite them pulling their advertisements.
More interesting discussion here is whether or not legal agreements that stop people from expressing their honest opinions are morally just, and where their limits go. As far as I understand, you would be expected to lie in order to maintain the agreement. Say, if someone asked him about his views regarding people of colour on television, he'd have to actively lie. And I agree with Billydaman on the fact that forcing people to lie isn't going to do anything to actually reduce racism. Actively punishing racists really doesn't do much either.
I don't think there's much dispute whether or not the guys contract can be terminated. It almost certainly can, if it's possible to terminate contracts with players on the basis of them drinking alcohol, even in private. I just don't think such contracts are a sensible thing to enforce. And in fact, can be seen as a discrimination towards certain genetic traits on their own. Substance use and abuse are genetic, so using them as a standard isn't really a nonbiased way to look at things, and the correct meritocratic way would be simply looking at the performance of the athlete.
Either way, I'm certainly going off on a tangent here. The bottom line is that he signed a silly contract and it can be terminated, whether or not he divulged his opinions in private or public does not matter.
He is not violation of any contract he has signed. It is important if he intended to divulge the substance of the conversation. He has to willfully harm the NBA. That implicitly if not explicitly demonstrates he has to have intent. A private and personal discussion is not willfully hurting the NBA. If anyone were to ever sign a contract where their private and personal discussions would result in the loss of property. I'm not sure anyone would sign such a contract.
I wonder what part of the Clippers does he actually own...
For example when someone franchises a McDonalds they are basically buying naming rights and buying into a distribution chain. McDonalds can take that part away from the owner but they can't take the actual restaurant.
Does this guy own the Clippers name? Does he own the contracts with the players? I think the most important details here are which parts he actually owns and what of the Clippers does the NBA own. I don't think it would take much of an argument to say the NBA can kick the team out of the NBA itself... the question is if that's all they do would they have to make a new team with a new name?
The NBA owns the league and except for exceptional circumstances they have no ownership stake in teams. Its almost like the NCAA. They can prevent his team from playing games and revoke his membership in the league, to which they did.
I think banning him from the NBA was the right move although it still highlights our societies need to punish people instead of rehabilitate them.
I still can not believe people think its okay to force someone to sell their property for having a private and personal discussion that violates no laws, contract or no contract.
They can ban his team from playing in the NBA, they can not take the team. McDonald's can prevent you from using their logo but they cant take your employees, your restaurant or your ownership of the business. they can only take the name and any sort of support they provide. Get your facts straight before you preach to me how "frustrating I am". They can destroy his business but they cant take his personal property because he said something offensive. If you believe they should, I want your house because you offend me.
Except we don't have any sort of legal agreement whereby I have to conduct myself in a manner that reflects well on you. You're making a whole lot of bad comparisons.
In article 13 of the franchising agreement, it would have to be proved by the NBA, but by alienating sponsors and the fan base, he could be 'failing to meet his contractual obligations'. Hopefully the NBA actually has a case for this, which remains to be seen.
Alienating people is not failing to meet a contractual obligation. There no legal agreement between Sterling and the NBA where it prohibits or denies him from having private and personal discussions. The contents of those discussions are irrelevant unless he willfully brings harm to the NBA. The NBA must prove he meant to harm the NBA. As far as forcing him to sell, Silver did nothing more than placate people who wanted vengeance. My example stands until you can prove what part of the contract Sterling failed to obligate.
If you do some research, the sponsors are still liable for paying the Clippers despite them pulling their advertisements.
Be careful, here. We do not know exactly what his contractual obligations are, because the NBA keeps its own bylaws secret. You're asserting things that you have no way of knowing, and everyone here knows it. I suspect they don't have anything strong enough to actually force a sale, but it's certainly possible, and in any case the value of his property is about to nosedive if he does fight a sale, because very few players are going to sign new contracts with his team as long as he owns it, and the players who ARE under contract may have a decent case fighting to get out of their contracts. Going along with a sale is probably financially in his best interests. But that'll be between him, the NBA and any new owners, of course.
As for rehabilitating him, I don't see why we should care whether Donald Sterling is rehabilitated. It's been 40 years since ignorance was a plausible excuse. He should know better, and if he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant. If he comes around, great, but he probably won't, there's probably absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose any sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on.
I should note that all of this is dependent on the NBA's case. I'm assuming they actually have a case, but all any of us are doing right now is speculating.
You're asserting things that you have no way of knowing, and everyone here knows it.
See above and think before you post.
I suspect they don't have anything strong enough to actually force a sale, but it's certainly possible, and in any case the value of his property is about to nosedive if he does fight a sale, because very few players are going to sign new contracts with his team as long as he owns it, and the players who ARE under contract may have a decent case fighting to get out of their contracts.
They do not.
Going along with a sale is probably financially in his best interests. But that'll be between him, the NBA and any new owners, of course.
I nor anyone else is interested in what best for Sterling.
As for rehabilitating him, I don't see why we should care whether Donald Sterling is rehabilitated.
You do not understand. Sterling is mere placeholder for the much greater issue. It could be anyone. You are equivocating my criticisms of the reaction and actions of others as empathy or sympathy of Sterling. Sterling is just another example of vindictiveness winning over rehabilitation.
It's been 40 years since ignorance was a plausible excuse. He should know better, and if he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant. If he comes around, great, but he probably won't, there's probably absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose any sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on.
This is naive. He and other bigots do not know better. Pretending they should know is just putting your head in the sand. An 18 year old kid graduates high school and cant read. He had 13 years and there absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on. Does your reasoning only apply to racism or can it be applied to any learned construct?
I should note that all of this is dependent on the NBA's case. I'm assuming they actually have a case, but all any of us are doing right now is speculating.
You brought up sponsors, not me. What contract did he fail to obligate? We are getting in the weeds. Its not so much to debate whether he violated a contract. I'm arguing against the people who think he should be forced to sell on principal. Most people think he should be forced to sell because he is a racist, not because he purportedly violated a contract.
I wonder what part of the Clippers does he actually own...
For example when someone franchises a McDonalds they are basically buying naming rights and buying into a distribution chain. McDonalds can take that part away from the owner but they can't take the actual restaurant.
Does this guy own the Clippers name? Does he own the contracts with the players? I think the most important details here are which parts he actually owns and what of the Clippers does the NBA own. I don't think it would take much of an argument to say the NBA can kick the team out of the NBA itself... the question is if that's all they do would they have to make a new team with a new name?
The NBA owns the league and except for exceptional circumstances they have no ownership stake in teams. Its almost like the NCAA. They can prevent his team from playing games and revoke his membership in the league, to which they did.
I think banning him from the NBA was the right move although it still highlights our societies need to punish people instead of rehabilitate them.
I still can not believe people think its okay to force someone to sell their property for having a private and personal discussion that violates no laws, contract or no contract.
Right so the League can essentially kick his team out and then create a new team to fill in. They would have to give it a new name. Then the players would have to break their current contracts to sign new contracts to get back in the NBA. Basically for everyone still in the NBA it's a lot easier if they just transfer ownership. But since he's fighting it, chances are it will turn into a messy situation for everyone involved and ultimately he'll be left with a worthless basketball team.
That's interesting. How long has that been available? I will grant that I didn't research it first; I've seen it reported that the bylaws are secret by so many news sources that I just accepted it. My bad, assuming that's legitimately the complete set of bylaws.
As for rehabilitating him, I don't see why we should care whether Donald Sterling is rehabilitated.
You do not understand. Sterling is mere placeholder for the much greater issue. It could be anyone. You are equivocating my criticisms of the reaction and actions of others as empathy or sympathy of Sterling. Sterling is just another example of vindictiveness winning over rehabilitation.
It could not be anyone. It could be anyone who is advocating monstrous positions that denigrate the people who work for them who has been going for so long that it's doubtful if not downright impossible that they'll be reformed, sure, but I hope that doesn't describe anything close to 'could be anyone'.
It's been 40 years since ignorance was a plausible excuse. He should know better, and if he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant. If he comes around, great, but he probably won't, there's probably absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose any sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on.
This is naive. He and other bigots do not know better. Pretending they should know is just putting your head in the sand. An 18 year old kid graduates high school and cant read. He had 13 years and there absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on. Does your reasoning only apply to racism or can it be applied to any learned construct?
If a person is unwilling to learn something, they aren't going to learn it. It's not that I wouldn't love to see Donald Sterling brought into the 21st century on matters of race; it's that I don't think it's possible to bring Donald Sterling into the 21st century on matters of race. That being so, the correct course of action is to minimize the damage he can deal. If I'm wrong about Donald Sterling - and I certainly won't claim to be a close, personal relation of his, I don't know him, so that's of course a live possibility - and he can be reformed, great, do that instead.
My reasoning applies to anyone espousing monstrous positions who has had literally decades of opportunity to reform and has failed to do so; it applies to anyone who is not willing to be taught. I would love to see every single bigot reform. I think that'd be a worthwhile goal. But it's not something that will happen on this planet in this century and pretending that everyone can be changed is staggeringly naive.
[quote from="Jay13x"
You brought up sponsors, not me. What contract did he fail to obligate? We are getting in the weeds. Its not so much to debate whether he violated a contract. I'm arguing against the people who think he should be forced to sell on principal. Most people think he should be forced to sell because he is a racist, not because he purportedly violated a contract.
Who exactly are these "most" people? I certainly don't think he can or should be forced to sell if the contract and bylaws don't grant the NBA that authority.
I should note that all of this is dependent on the NBA's case. I'm assuming they actually have a case, but all any of us are doing right now is speculating.
You brought up sponsors, not me. What contract did he fail to obligate? We are getting in the weeds. Its not so much to debate whether he violated a contract. I'm arguing against the people who think he should be forced to sell on principal. Most people think he should be forced to sell because he is a racist, not because he purportedly violated a contract.
I don't know about that. I don't think that he should be forced to sell because he's racist. I think his racism has alienated a huge portion of the fanbase and his continued ownership would hurt the NBA financially. The NBA will actually have to prove that, however, and as I said everything is contingent on them actually having a case. It really depends on how much of the franchise they own.
What exactly does the NBA contract stipulate on this?
Racism is a no-no? Pissing off a lot of people and potentially losing money is a no-no?
Because that's what this really comes down to. If he was forced to sell his team because of racism but there's nothing in any legal contract that demands this, then that is flat out wrong. If he was forced to sell his team because of some tortured reading of his contract, but the real reason is the racism, then that is also wrong.
But if it was because of something clearly in the contract, then w.e.
Then again, I don't know why the hell free speech matters in a deal that doesn't involve the government, but what do I know?
I don't get this logic.
Does that mean if I were to force everyone who worked under me to not express gay-right beliefs, then I'm not violating their right to free speech?
I really don't understand this belief that government is the only thing that can oppress us.
Causing PR debacles is pretty much grounds for firing in plenty of places and our constitutional protections are onlyagainst the government. I agree that there is more than government oppression, but a geriatric billionaire losing his sports team after expressing racism is not oppression. He's going to profit from the sale, massively, it isn't be defaulted.
[quote from="Jay13x"
You brought up sponsors, not me. What contract did he fail to obligate? We are getting in the weeds. Its not so much to debate whether he violated a contract. I'm arguing against the people who think he should be forced to sell on principal. Most people think he should be forced to sell because he is a racist, not because he purportedly violated a contract.
Who exactly are these "most" people? I certainly don't think he can or should be forced to sell if the contract and bylaws don't grant the NBA that authority.
I think this is an important point. I haven't encountered a lot of people who think he should be punitively forced to sell (explicitly, by the NBA) even if there is no legal authority to force him to sell. I think there will be a great deal of pressure on him to sell when he can't bring in new sponsors and when players treat his organization as a pariah, refusing to sign with him, but that's certainly not some form of oppression, that's just what happens when you make yourself someone who others don't want to do business with.
Then again, I don't know why the hell free speech matters in a deal that doesn't involve the government, but what do I know?
I don't get this logic.
Does that mean if I were to force everyone who worked under me to not express gay-right beliefs, then I'm not violating their right to free speech?
I really don't understand this belief that government is the only thing that can oppress us.
I THINK that this is correct - that, unless some other legal principle intervenes (as it presumably would, say, if you were to go around firing people for saying that black people should have the right to vote, but I'm not even confident of that much), you can legally be fired for your statements which are public or are made public. I'm not certain of this and I'm not a lawyer - I could easily be wrong. But certainly lots of employees have been visibly fired for saying things that damage their employer (the XBox One kerfluffle last year comes to mind), even when they didn't expect it to get out.
Your employer almost always oppresses you in many ways... but you're not legally bound to agree to work for an employer whose policies on this you disagree with.
What exactly does the NBA contract stipulate on this?
Racism is a no-no? Pissing off a lot of people and potentially losing money is a no-no?
Because that's what this really comes down to. If he was forced to sell his team because of racism but there's nothing in any legal contract that demands this, then that is flat out wrong. If he was forced to sell his team because of some tortured reading of his contract, but the real reason is the racism, then that is also wrong.
But if it was because of something clearly in the contract, then w.e.
I imagine it'll be the same reasoning that can be used for a company to fire a CEO when they get boycotted over some kind of "ism". Their employment risks hurting their bottom line so they have to go (even if they have a perfect track record in their job). I wonder how long it will be until business start using that same logic to fire low level employees for things like "our customers are primarily white and dont like being served by a black waiter, his employment risks us losing customers."
That's interesting. How long has that been available? I will grant that I didn't research it first; I've seen it reported that the bylaws are secret by so many news sources that I just accepted it. My bad, assuming that's legitimately the complete set of bylaws.
I'm not sure if it was available before this whole thing started, I've never been interested to look at the bylaws before. The media has done a mostly poor job reporting the facts of this situation.
If a person is unwilling to learn something, they aren't going to learn it. It's not that I wouldn't love to see Donald Sterling brought into the 21st century on matters of race; it's that I don't think it's possible to bring Donald Sterling into the 21st century on matters of race. That being so, the correct course of action is to minimize the damage he can deal. If I'm wrong about Donald Sterling - and I certainly won't claim to be a close, personal relation of his, I don't know him, so that's of course a live possibility - and he can be reformed, great, do that instead.
My reasoning applies to anyone espousing monstrous positions who has had literally decades of opportunity to reform and has failed to do so; it applies to anyone who is not willing to be taught. I would love to see every single bigot reform. I think that'd be a worthwhile goal. But it's not something that will happen on this planet in this century and pretending that everyone can be changed is staggeringly naive.
Again, this is not so much about Sterling but more about our reaction and missed opportunity. You look at the media and very little is discussed about why his comments were offensive or racist. It was all about his punishment and exile. It's taken for granted these people are aware they are racist. Who really cares if you reform Sterling when you have an audience of millions if not billions of people that you can educate? Its not about Sterling. It about how we react to people like Sterling.
Again, this is not so much about Sterling but more about our reaction and missed opportunity. You look at the media and very little is discussed about why his comments were offensive or racist. It was all about his punishment and exile. It's taken for granted these people are aware they are racist. Who really cares if you reform Sterling when you have an audience of millions if not billions of people that you can educate? Its not about Sterling. It about how we react to people like Sterling.
The message being sent to the millions of people watching this saga seems clear enough to me: spouting off on racist diatribes is unacceptable. That's the message we want sent, right? A softer approach would undercut it.
Then again, I don't know why the hell free speech matters in a deal that doesn't involve the government, but what do I know?
I don't get this logic.
Does that mean if I were to force everyone who worked under me to not express gay-right beliefs, then I'm not violating their right to free speech?
I really don't understand this belief that government is the only thing that can oppress us.
Causing PR debacles is pretty much grounds for firing in plenty of places and our constitutional protections are only against the government. I agree that there is more than government oppression, but a geriatric billionaire losing his sports team after expressing racism is not oppression. He's going to profit from the sale, massively, it isn't be defaulted.
He is not being fired. It is his property. I'm not sure your definition of oppression but having your property taken because you expressed privately with a personal friend an unpopular opinion that did not violate any contract is pretty damn oppressive to me. Sterling unique status as a billionaire is irrelevant.
Then again, I don't know why the hell free speech matters in a deal that doesn't involve the government, but what do I know?
I don't get this logic.
Does that mean if I were to force everyone who worked under me to not express gay-right beliefs, then I'm not violating their right to free speech?
I really don't understand this belief that government is the only thing that can oppress us.
Causing PR debacles is pretty much grounds for firing in plenty of places and our constitutional protections are only against the government. I agree that there is more than government oppression, but a geriatric billionaire losing his sports team after expressing racism is not oppression. He's going to profit from the sale, massively, it isn't be defaulted.
He is not being fired. It is his property. I'm not sure your definition of oppression but having your property taken because you expressed privately with a personal friend an unpopular opinion that did not violate any contract is pretty damn oppressive to me. Sterling unique status as a billionaire is irrelevant.
How about instead of misunderstanding my reply to magicware you go back and reply to the stuff I've already written you that you've ignored?
I think this is an important point. I haven't encountered a lot of people who think he should be punitively forced to sell (explicitly, by the NBA) even if there is no legal authority to force him to sell. I think there will be a great deal of pressure on him to sell when he can't bring in new sponsors and when players treat his organization as a pariah, refusing to sign with him, but that's certainly not some form of oppression, that's just what happens when you make yourself someone who others don't want to do business with.
Silver decided to force the sale as way to placate a bunch of angry people. Do the research on legal opinions, there is very little chance the NBA can force him to sell and even they did, he'll likely be dead before he does it. Yet, there is all kinds of support for it. The support for Silvers actions has nothing to do with a contract and everything to do with Sterlings comments. I believe most people could care less if he violated a contract or not. We all know this is not about him violating a contract. So any talk about support the sale of the team is largely based on his racist remarks.
I think this is an important point. I haven't encountered a lot of people who think he should be punitively forced to sell (explicitly, by the NBA) even if there is no legal authority to force him to sell. I think there will be a great deal of pressure on him to sell when he can't bring in new sponsors and when players treat his organization as a pariah, refusing to sign with him, but that's certainly not some form of oppression, that's just what happens when you make yourself someone who others don't want to do business with.
Silver decided to force the sale as way to placate a bunch of angry people. Do the research on legal opinions, there is very little chance the NBA can force him to sell and even they did, he'll likely be dead before he does it. Yet, there is all kinds of support for it. The support for Silvers actions has nothing to do with a contract and everything to do with Sterlings comments. I believe most people could care less if he violated a contract or not. We all know this is not about him violating a contract. So any talk about support the sale of the team is largely based on his racist remarks.
Public support for Silver's actions is most definitely based on opposition to Sterling's racism since most of the public has no financial stake in the NBA or have a contract with Sterling.
On the other hand the other NBA owners are just as likely to support this because it is costing them money and they do not like to lose money. As such they would have a vested interest in determining that Sterling violated his contract and should be forced to sell. Sterling was obligated to not say stuff that would cost the league money and he failed to keep his mouth shut so the other owners want him gone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Cite?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Alienating people is not failing to meet a contractual obligation. There no legal agreement between Sterling and the NBA where it prohibits or denies him from having private and personal discussions. The contents of those discussions are irrelevant unless he willfully brings harm to the NBA. The NBA must prove he meant to harm the NBA. As far as forcing him to sell, Silver did nothing more than placate people who wanted vengeance. My example stands until you can prove what part of the contract Sterling failed to obligate.
If you do some research, the sponsors are still liable for paying the Clippers despite them pulling their advertisements.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
He is not violation of any contract he has signed. It is important if he intended to divulge the substance of the conversation. He has to willfully harm the NBA. That implicitly if not explicitly demonstrates he has to have intent. A private and personal discussion is not willfully hurting the NBA. If anyone were to ever sign a contract where their private and personal discussions would result in the loss of property. I'm not sure anyone would sign such a contract.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The NBA owns the league and except for exceptional circumstances they have no ownership stake in teams. Its almost like the NCAA. They can prevent his team from playing games and revoke his membership in the league, to which they did.
I think banning him from the NBA was the right move although it still highlights our societies need to punish people instead of rehabilitate them.
I still can not believe people think its okay to force someone to sell their property for having a private and personal discussion that violates no laws, contract or no contract.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Be careful, here. We do not know exactly what his contractual obligations are, because the NBA keeps its own bylaws secret. You're asserting things that you have no way of knowing, and everyone here knows it. I suspect they don't have anything strong enough to actually force a sale, but it's certainly possible, and in any case the value of his property is about to nosedive if he does fight a sale, because very few players are going to sign new contracts with his team as long as he owns it, and the players who ARE under contract may have a decent case fighting to get out of their contracts. Going along with a sale is probably financially in his best interests. But that'll be between him, the NBA and any new owners, of course.
As for rehabilitating him, I don't see why we should care whether Donald Sterling is rehabilitated. It's been 40 years since ignorance was a plausible excuse. He should know better, and if he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant. If he comes around, great, but he probably won't, there's probably absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose any sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on.
And what happens after their contractually obligated payments are over? They don't have to continue paying in perpetuity.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
How is that relevant? You need to demonstrate he failed an obligation.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I should note that all of this is dependent on the NBA's case. I'm assuming they actually have a case, but all any of us are doing right now is speculating.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm a spy
http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Constitution-and-By-Laws.pdf
See above and think before you post.
They do not.
I nor anyone else is interested in what best for Sterling.
You do not understand. Sterling is mere placeholder for the much greater issue. It could be anyone. You are equivocating my criticisms of the reaction and actions of others as empathy or sympathy of Sterling. Sterling is just another example of vindictiveness winning over rehabilitation.
This is naive. He and other bigots do not know better. Pretending they should know is just putting your head in the sand. An 18 year old kid graduates high school and cant read. He had 13 years and there absolutely nothing anyone can do at this point to make him understand, and I don't think anyone needs to lose sleep over it. Just marginalize him and move on. Does your reasoning only apply to racism or can it be applied to any learned construct?
This truly astounds me that you think this way.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You brought up sponsors, not me. What contract did he fail to obligate? We are getting in the weeds. Its not so much to debate whether he violated a contract. I'm arguing against the people who think he should be forced to sell on principal. Most people think he should be forced to sell because he is a racist, not because he purportedly violated a contract.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Right so the League can essentially kick his team out and then create a new team to fill in. They would have to give it a new name. Then the players would have to break their current contracts to sign new contracts to get back in the NBA. Basically for everyone still in the NBA it's a lot easier if they just transfer ownership. But since he's fighting it, chances are it will turn into a messy situation for everyone involved and ultimately he'll be left with a worthless basketball team.
That's interesting. How long has that been available? I will grant that I didn't research it first; I've seen it reported that the bylaws are secret by so many news sources that I just accepted it. My bad, assuming that's legitimately the complete set of bylaws.
It could not be anyone. It could be anyone who is advocating monstrous positions that denigrate the people who work for them who has been going for so long that it's doubtful if not downright impossible that they'll be reformed, sure, but I hope that doesn't describe anything close to 'could be anyone'.
If a person is unwilling to learn something, they aren't going to learn it. It's not that I wouldn't love to see Donald Sterling brought into the 21st century on matters of race; it's that I don't think it's possible to bring Donald Sterling into the 21st century on matters of race. That being so, the correct course of action is to minimize the damage he can deal. If I'm wrong about Donald Sterling - and I certainly won't claim to be a close, personal relation of his, I don't know him, so that's of course a live possibility - and he can be reformed, great, do that instead.
My reasoning applies to anyone espousing monstrous positions who has had literally decades of opportunity to reform and has failed to do so; it applies to anyone who is not willing to be taught. I would love to see every single bigot reform. I think that'd be a worthwhile goal. But it's not something that will happen on this planet in this century and pretending that everyone can be changed is staggeringly naive.
I'm happy to astound you, then.
I don't get this logic.
Does that mean if I were to force everyone who worked under me to not express gay-right beliefs, then I'm not violating their right to free speech?
I really don't understand this belief that government is the only thing that can oppress us.
Who exactly are these "most" people? I certainly don't think he can or should be forced to sell if the contract and bylaws don't grant the NBA that authority.
I don't know about that. I don't think that he should be forced to sell because he's racist. I think his racism has alienated a huge portion of the fanbase and his continued ownership would hurt the NBA financially. The NBA will actually have to prove that, however, and as I said everything is contingent on them actually having a case. It really depends on how much of the franchise they own.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Racism is a no-no? Pissing off a lot of people and potentially losing money is a no-no?
Because that's what this really comes down to. If he was forced to sell his team because of racism but there's nothing in any legal contract that demands this, then that is flat out wrong. If he was forced to sell his team because of some tortured reading of his contract, but the real reason is the racism, then that is also wrong.
But if it was because of something clearly in the contract, then w.e.
Causing PR debacles is pretty much grounds for firing in plenty of places and our constitutional protections are onlyagainst the government. I agree that there is more than government oppression, but a geriatric billionaire losing his sports team after expressing racism is not oppression. He's going to profit from the sale, massively, it isn't be defaulted.
I think this is an important point. I haven't encountered a lot of people who think he should be punitively forced to sell (explicitly, by the NBA) even if there is no legal authority to force him to sell. I think there will be a great deal of pressure on him to sell when he can't bring in new sponsors and when players treat his organization as a pariah, refusing to sign with him, but that's certainly not some form of oppression, that's just what happens when you make yourself someone who others don't want to do business with.
I THINK that this is correct - that, unless some other legal principle intervenes (as it presumably would, say, if you were to go around firing people for saying that black people should have the right to vote, but I'm not even confident of that much), you can legally be fired for your statements which are public or are made public. I'm not certain of this and I'm not a lawyer - I could easily be wrong. But certainly lots of employees have been visibly fired for saying things that damage their employer (the XBox One kerfluffle last year comes to mind), even when they didn't expect it to get out.
Your employer almost always oppresses you in many ways... but you're not legally bound to agree to work for an employer whose policies on this you disagree with.
I imagine it'll be the same reasoning that can be used for a company to fire a CEO when they get boycotted over some kind of "ism". Their employment risks hurting their bottom line so they have to go (even if they have a perfect track record in their job). I wonder how long it will be until business start using that same logic to fire low level employees for things like "our customers are primarily white and dont like being served by a black waiter, his employment risks us losing customers."
I'm not sure if it was available before this whole thing started, I've never been interested to look at the bylaws before. The media has done a mostly poor job reporting the facts of this situation.
Again, this is not so much about Sterling but more about our reaction and missed opportunity. You look at the media and very little is discussed about why his comments were offensive or racist. It was all about his punishment and exile. It's taken for granted these people are aware they are racist. Who really cares if you reform Sterling when you have an audience of millions if not billions of people that you can educate? Its not about Sterling. It about how we react to people like Sterling.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The message being sent to the millions of people watching this saga seems clear enough to me: spouting off on racist diatribes is unacceptable. That's the message we want sent, right? A softer approach would undercut it.
He is not being fired. It is his property. I'm not sure your definition of oppression but having your property taken because you expressed privately with a personal friend an unpopular opinion that did not violate any contract is pretty damn oppressive to me. Sterling unique status as a billionaire is irrelevant.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
How about instead of misunderstanding my reply to magicware you go back and reply to the stuff I've already written you that you've ignored?
Silver decided to force the sale as way to placate a bunch of angry people. Do the research on legal opinions, there is very little chance the NBA can force him to sell and even they did, he'll likely be dead before he does it. Yet, there is all kinds of support for it. The support for Silvers actions has nothing to do with a contract and everything to do with Sterlings comments. I believe most people could care less if he violated a contract or not. We all know this is not about him violating a contract. So any talk about support the sale of the team is largely based on his racist remarks.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Public support for Silver's actions is most definitely based on opposition to Sterling's racism since most of the public has no financial stake in the NBA or have a contract with Sterling.
On the other hand the other NBA owners are just as likely to support this because it is costing them money and they do not like to lose money. As such they would have a vested interest in determining that Sterling violated his contract and should be forced to sell. Sterling was obligated to not say stuff that would cost the league money and he failed to keep his mouth shut so the other owners want him gone.