The Thought Police vs Donald Sterling

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 1^st 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 1^st 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.

           

            Again, I cannot accept the premise that our property rights are contingent upon holding views the rest of society accepts, or hiding as deep secrets whichever unconventional or unpopular views we might have for fear of such massive retaliation.   To protect and safeguard our own freedom of speech and belief, we have to accept the rights of others to hold contrary viewpoints, no matter how vehemently we may disagree with them.  As Mark Cuban said, "In this country, people are allowed to be morons."