Obviously
the Clippers’ owner is in big trouble.
No one is defending the substance of his statements. But Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Mark Cuban have
raised extremely relevant points. KAJ,
aka “Roger Murdock”, pointed out that the comments were not made in public, but
were a private conversation, surreptitiously taped by the GF or someone else,
and then leaked. It’s not like Sterling
took the mike at halftime, and went out onto the court, and addressed the crowd
and the national viewing audience in an attempt to broadcast his unpopular
views. Nor is this like the Greaseman’s
“now I know why they drag them behind trucks” comment: again, broadcast to the
public on the air. These comments were made in a private conversation and leaked without
his consent.
As of now, Stiviano is denying that
she released the conversation; I don’t see what her motive for doing so could
have been. If a third party recorded
the conversation and then released it, under California law, that would be
illegal and subject to civil suit. In
particular, CA law requires the consent of ALL parties to record a
conversation, so if Stiviano was the one responsible, she would be on the hook
here. Given that Mr. Sterling is out at
least $2.5 million AND possibly the value of his franchise if expropriated from
him by the NBA, the civil damages under CA law would be x3 = $7.5 million + 3x the
value of the Clippers; Sterling acquired hte Clippers in 1981 for $12.5 million, and as of 2014 the team is valued at $575 million by Forbes magazine. Perhaps the L.A. County District Attorney’s
Office should be investigating exactly who did that, though the criminal
sanctions (less than a year in jail) are dwarfed by the civil repercussions.
Cuban rightly questioned whether
having “incorrect” or moronic views is just cause for taking away an NBA team
from you. Who decides what is the
“correct” view or position? Granted, the
NBA’s actions are those of a private party and not a state action, so legally
it’s not censorship. But then we have to
interview all the NBA owners, all the NFL, MLB, and NHL owners, etc., and
determine if they are all “on board” with America’s currently acceptable
political views. How long would Steinbrenner have kept the
Yankees? Are we sure we like Dan Snyder
that much? Bigoted assholes can’t own a
sports franchise – only nice, likeable rich people? You have to pass a politically correct litmus
test? Is that what we want? Brilliant, now only Warren Buffett and
Richard Branson can own sports teams.
Now Harry Reid is urging more of
this coercion: that the Redskins be
forced to rename their franchise. There
is also talk about forcing the Clippers to change their name. Where does it end? Mass seppuku for the team – after the
playoffs, of course? Will Winston Smith,
of the Ministry of Truth, excise all mention of the L.A. Clippers and Donald
Sterling from public media? Review this
again: for making racist statements in
private, Sterling is banned from the NBA for life, fined $2.5 million, and now
there’s talk of forcing him to sell the team.
To take an extreme example, suppose
David Duke bought a sports franchise.
Then he hired coaches and managers to run the team, and basically sit
back and let the money pile in (assuming the franchise was profitable). No KLAN ads in the forum, he hires black
players, even a black coach, etc., so no outward change perceptible. But we know who David Duke is and what he
stands for. Is he prohibited from owning a team?
We
talk about “diversity”, but the standard only seems to work one way. We decide what the “correct” position on
each issue is, and reward the people who express agreement with it and punish
those who don’t. The end result – and
implicit intention – is to bludgeon the entire country into accepting a
narrowly defined value judgment system which someone – who? – has decided is
“correct.” Lifetime bans, humungous
fines, and a forced sale of private property.
Bottom line: if your views are
unpopular your property is fair game.
Imagine being forced to sell your house or your business because you
said something nasty in private and it was leaked to the public. That’s a dangerous precedent.
If Sterling, or anyone else, commits
crimes or torts based on those beliefs, he should be held accountable for that
behavior, but the underlying belief system should be free for him to
decide. As Sheriff Buford T. Justice
said, “oh…you can THINK about it, but don’t do it.” Is this a free country? Or do you only have rights if people like you
and agree with your politics or views?
For that matter, my focus has been
on Sterling’s speech as private and publicized without his knowledge or
consent. But would it really be any
different if he had made the remarks in public? Courtside at a Clippers game? In a magazine interview? In a TV interview? In a speech?
Does publicly verbalizing unpopular ideas – racism, anti-semitism,
homophobia, etc. – necessarily entitle others to attack your personal property,
expropriate your business, levy fines against you? Do you forfeit your rights to life, liberty,
or property? Clearly the first two
would equal censorship, and content-based restrictions by the state are
forbidden under the 1st Amendment, with narrowly confined
exceptions. Shouting “fire” in a crowded
theater, inciting a crowd to riot, advocating the violent overthrow of the
government, “fighting words”, and so forth, lose 1st Amendment
protection, though clearly these factors do not apply in Sterling’s case, where
the speech was in a private conversation and publicized without his knowledge
or consent.
In addition to not defending the
substance of Sterling’s speech, nor am I saying that those offended by it have
absolutely no right to react or respond.
Some allowance has to be made for others’ freedom of association, i.e. a
country club could revoke his membership and his peers could ostracize
him. Sponsors could withdraw (depending
on the contract), fans could boycott the team.
But contractual and property rights should not necessarily be
forfeited. I can't pretend to know whether the NBA has any contract with the Clippers which would allow the league to force an owner to sell the team against his will, but any such forced sale would have to come out of that and not merely popular demand.
No comments:
Post a Comment