Lawrinson14
Master Image Editor
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 2,553
- Like
- 8,202
Hahaha, he would have faced lighter penalties had he killed someone.
Very excessive punishment. It perfectly exemplifies the butthurt culture of modern America. People need to realize they don't have a right to not be offended.
This analogy doesn't work. If a McDonald's franchisee did something in his personal/business life the was extremely detrimental to the McDonald's brand, I imagine McDonald's and other franchisees would use whatever means necessary within their franchise agreement to take away the franchise. The teams are franchises of the NBA. The owners are franchise owners. It's a pretty exclusive club and I imagine their membership rules are explicit.
I agree people get way too offended! Or is it people have way too much free time on their hands to worry about what other people are doing with their lives? Either way I really don't care what he said.
The fact is there's racism everywhere and there'll always be racism everywhere. Name a race and there is always Racism towards someone else, it's just human nature.
damn, that blows my 10 year plan to get my finances in position to purchase the Clippers!
Amazing that freedom of speech is going away.
Amazing that freedom of speech is going away.
First amendment protections don't apply here.
Would everyone please stop saying this? And would one of the lawyers here please explain why this statement is so off base?
How is his "freedom of speech" being taken away? Freedom of speech is just from the government, that doesn't mean there aren't consequences to speech. If I were to embarrass my employers and hurt their business due to my speech they would have the right to fire me.
How do they enforce this, he owns the team. Even if they can try to force a sale if he resists it will be in litigation till after this guy dies.even if owners dont vote to force sale, lifetime ban will still stand
Under California law this recorded was made illegally and the person making it would have committed a felony, not sure how this could be admissible in any kind of court proceedings.The thing I don't get is he hasn't committed any crime and this isn't due to an incident Within the work place. Can you really be punished that severely on a recording you didn't Consent to? I think a lawyer will have a field day with this if they tray to proceed with what was announced.
The thing I don't get is he hasn't committed any crime and this isn't due to an incident Within the work place. Can you really be punished that severely on a recording you didn't Consent to? I think a lawyer will have a field day with this if they tray to proceed with what was announced.
He and Sterling go to the same hairdresser.My prediction will be Larry King.
What does any of that have to do with this? It's not a court case. There are no standards for what is admissible evidence. There's no need for a crime to be committed. His actions/words, regardless of how the public came to know of them, are detrimental to the NBA's brand, and they are taking steps to repair the damage done to it by a reckless embarrassment of an owner.
How do they enforce this, he owns the team. Even if they can try to force a sale if he resists it will be in litigation till after this guy dies.
It isn't human nature, that's for sure . The nature comes from growing up within a specific culture and being taught that everything your culture does is right and everything another culture does is wrong. People need to be taught that other peoples' cultures are different, but that doesn't make them wrong. There are a lot of values from just about every culture out there. There are also negatives.
What you're failing to realize is that if he's allowed to stay then we're sending the message to several million people that racism is okay. Instead, you can use this as an example and say that racism, under any circumstances, will not be tolerated. Which is exactly how it should be.
For America to be so advanced and yet so far behind in knowing right from wrong is honestly fascinating.
It could have a LOT to do with things if Sterling opposes the forced removal. Then it would be incumbent upon the NBA to demonstrate that they had just cause to force the sale--which might be tougher to do if the main evidence condemning Sterling is not admissible to justify / validate the league's actions.