• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Sterling's punishment too much? [W:359]

Was the punishment too harsh?

  • Yes

    Votes: 56 60.2%
  • No

    Votes: 37 39.8%

  • Total voters
    93
So it's okay to dislike people, as long as no businesses are involved. Is that right?

I made no such suggestion. The nature of his reprehensible remarks are beyond controversy. I merely explained why the NBA Commissioner needed to act forcefully. Given how much was at stake, he needed to act decisively. Had he acted weakly, the NBA and all NBA franchises would have suffered harm as advertisers and audiences reduced their appetite for the NBA. Hence, it is very likely that the Commissioner will gain sufficient support to compel the sale of the Clippers. A unanimous vote is a strong possibility.
 
At the risk of "blaming the victim," the fact that he trusted this gold digger enough to think she might not do something skeevy like this shows remarkable naivete. When you're rich like he is, there's always someone trying to take you down.

I'll admit that he was damned stupid to say it to her. Even if she wasn't half-black herself - she ain't with you for your body and personality, Skeletor.

Fortunately, Son of Sam laws will prevent her from getting rich.
 
I thought privacy was something that the Liberals valued. Now you're saying it's not to be valued? Whatever happened to "stay out of my bedroom"?

Or whatever happened to people being free to like and dislike whomever they want, as long as they don't act on it.

But go ahead, tell me. You like everybody, right?

Privacy from the government.

In my state, my spouse can legally record whatever the hell she wants, so long as she gives consent to it and she is a party in the conversation.

Think of it this way: If I knew my employer was acting discriminatory (in a private conversation), either towards me or towards someone else, it makes little sense to say, "Hey, I know this is a private conversation, but you don't mind if I record this, do you?"
 
No.

Sterling's hateful actions posed a real risk of inflicting significant, lasting, and costly damage to the NBA's global brand. Had the Commissioner not exercised decisive leadership, the NBA could have found itself in a position of a loss of talent in the longer-term, loss of advertisers, reduced TV ratings/reduced TV contract, and smaller global profile. Half-measures would have resulted in the NBA's sustaining a "slow bleed." The corporate literature is filled with accounts where corporations failed to act decisively in the face of scandals or controversies and wound up with lasting and significant reductions in the brand reputations and market capitalization.

As ugly as Sterling's comments were what about all the bigoted views of whites by blacks within the NBA? Or of Chinese? Or of fat players? Or Gay players? Most people are bigoted in one way or the other. Do we only pound those who are bigoted toward blacks? It's not against the law to be bigoted. It was a private conversation and most probably including yourself would be found bigoted on some regard in a private conversation. We all would.

Your concerns could have been easily addressed with a fine and reprimand. The punishment was over the top. How you can justify that is scary.
 
I made no such suggestion. The nature of his reprehensible remarks are beyond controversy. I merely explained why the NBA Commissioner needed to act forcefully. Given how much was at stake, he needed to act decisively. Had he acted weakly, the NBA and all NBA franchises would have suffered harm as advertisers and audiences reduced their appetite for the NBA. Hence, it is very likely that the Commissioner will gain sufficient support to compel the sale of the Clippers. A unanimous vote is a strong possibility.

You justified the NBA penalty by going on about the damage it would have done to them. So if the NBA wasn't involved, you think it's right or wrong that a person doesn't like everyone?
 
I think the banning for life is an overreaction. Too bad the NBA couldn't just adjust the players' contracts and give them an out if they didn't want to work for Sterling anymore.
 
I made no such suggestion. The nature of his reprehensible remarks are beyond controversy. I merely explained why the NBA Commissioner needed to act forcefully. Given how much was at stake, he needed to act decisively. Had he acted weakly, the NBA and all NBA franchises would have suffered harm as advertisers and audiences reduced their appetite for the NBA. Hence, it is very likely that the Commissioner will gain sufficient support to compel the sale of the Clippers. A unanimous vote is a strong possibility.

I can see your point. No doubt, the Commissioner was in a very tough spot. This story has spread like wildfire and I think people are reacting without seeing the whole picture. The man -- as reprehensible as he is -- spoke in confidence. I would be all for the stern punishment had he said such vile words directly to the press or at a speaking engagement.
 
Privacy from the government.

In my state, my spouse can legally record whatever the hell she wants, so long as she gives consent to it and she is a party in the conversation.

Think of it this way: If I knew my employer was acting discriminatory (in a private conversation), either towards me or towards someone else, it makes little sense to say, "Hey, I know this is a private conversation, but you don't mind if I record this, do you?"

So you're okay with people now having a vested interest in private conversations?
 
I can see your point. No doubt, the Commissioner was in a very tough spot. This story has spread like wildfire and I think people are reacting without seeing the whole picture. The man -- as reprehensible as he is -- spoke in confidence. I would be all for the stern punishment had he said such vile words directly to the press or at a speaking engagement.

Can you really blame them for the punishment with the consequences facing them? With all the sponsors pulling out and the NBA Players Association threatening to boycott during the playoffs if Sterling wasn't severely punished it gave the commissioner no choice.

The real problem is the outrage over his comments that forced the commissioner's hand in this.
 
I can see your point. No doubt, the Commissioner was in a very tough spot. This story has spread like wildfire and I think people are reacting without seeing the whole picture. The man -- as reprehensible as he is -- spoke in confidence. I would be all for the stern punishment had he said such vile words directly to the press or at a speaking engagement.

The NBA had to protect itself, especially as it came out that they knew about this man's tendencies and ignored them for decades, like the NAACP did. This was to save face (and money).

That said, this man's words didn't hurt anyone, nor did any of his actions that I'm aware of. This should never have gotten to the point that the NBA had to take action. People's private words should remain just that. If people had any balls, they'd say that. I'm not a public figure so I can't, but I'm waiting for one person to say just that. BFD, he doesn't like black people personally. I don't like the French and I really don't like the assholes in Canada who club baby seals. Does that make me a bad person? It should, by the logic I'm reading.
 
So you're okay with people now having a vested interest in private conversations?

I'm saying that I do not expect to be completely free from the possibility that someone in my place of residence could possibly be recording what I say.
 
I think the banning for life is an overreaction. Too bad the NBA couldn't just adjust the players' contracts and give them an out if they didn't want to work for Sterling anymore.
And how many of those players were aware of his racism as most were in that click due to the public controversy in other matters Sterling had been involved, still went ahead and renewed contracts knowing? Maybe because they were not treated badly by him even though others of their race were? Sorry, all those who judged him harshly today knew who he was years ago and all his players who shared outrage did too. Hypocrites is the word that comes to mind.
 
I'm saying that I do not expect to be completely free from the possibility that someone in my place of residence could possibly be recording what I say.

I'm not asking about someone recording you. I'm asking your opinion about people's private words becoming a national discussion, and people to no longer have an expectation of privacy.
 
It doesn't go both ways. Want to see one of the most outspoken racists ever? Flip to a halftime show during any game on TNT.
 
For his racist comments caught on tape, Clippers owner Donald Sterling recently had this ruling put on him by NBA commissioner Adam Silver:

$2.5M fine (maximum allowed in by-laws)
Lifetime ban from NBA games
Lifetime ban from NBA function
Zero access to facilities during Clippers games and practices
Urging by the BoD to owners for forced divestiture of ownership



Was the hammer too great, or spot on?

Also to take into consideration:

He spoke these words on his private property
He broke no actual laws
His girlfriend broke the law by recording him without his knowledge

They are a private organizaation entitled to impose whatever penalty their contract (that he signed) calls for. Sans that? I think it was too harsh.
 
I voted yes, but that doesn't mean I didn't think it would happen. Still trying to figure out how you ban an OWNER. I'm sure they are too, thus the word 'URGING'. Once recordings of more than an hour of private conversations were made public, it was open season on Mr. Sterling. No surprise there -- White Guilt is a heavy burden. Gotta hang the guy from the highest tree.

I think the ole boy might've been set up. I have an elderly dad... it wouldn't be that hard to manipulate him into saying something offensive... esp if you were a 38 yo golddigger. Who knows, maybe his wife is the one who was in cahoots with the g/f. I can hear the exchange now...

Mrs: "I'm suing you for millions, but what I really want is to get even with that prick husband of mine. Do you wanna work together to destroy him and I'll drop the charges against you in return for the favor?"

G/F: "Sure. How shall we do it?"

Mrs: "Well, he's a racist... you can always set him up to rant about blacks, record it and release it to TMZ. White Guilt Americans won't rest until he's destroyed. Why don't you call your friend, Magic Johnson and see if he'll help."

G/F: "Will do."

Mission accomplished.

Never underestimate the power of a woman scorned.
 
Can you really blame them for the punishment with the consequences facing them? With all the sponsors pulling out and the NBA Players Association threatening to boycott during the playoffs if Sterling wasn't severely punished it gave the commissioner no choice.

The real problem is the outrage over his comments that forced the commissioner's hand in this.

That is pretty much what I said.
 
I can see your point. No doubt, the Commissioner was in a very tough spot. This story has spread like wildfire and I think people are reacting without seeing the whole picture. The man -- as reprehensible as he is -- spoke in confidence. I would be all for the stern punishment had he said such vile words directly to the press or at a speaking engagement.

While people have the luxury of debating all angles of the Sterling incident, the NBA Commissioner didn't have the luxury of doing so. He faced an imminent revolt among advertisers in the wake of what had become a high-profile story. He has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the League's best interests. All of the League and its stakeholders faced serious and lasting damage. Pressure was rapidly intensifying. Had he punted or delayed his announcement, he would almost certainly have lost control of events. His decisive leadership was in the best interests of the League and very likely averted a disaster for the NBA.
 
True at least Stern, who seemed to hate Seattle with a burning passion, is no longer commissioner. But the Clippers have top 10 attendance and the NBA isn't going to want to take the PR hit that comes with punishing a fan base by letting their team move because of an owner's inflammatory comments.

L.A. doesn't need two NBA teams.
 
Last edited:
Not if the team is bought by a non-L.A. Owner.

Which the NBA won't let happen. Seattle deserves a team, but they are probably going to have to wait until the TV contract runs out in a few years and they discuss expansion.
 
That's the other thing that nobody seems to take into account, regarding the NBA's sudden interest in Sterling's bigotry and comparing this response to past transgressions by Sterling and many, many others. Adam Silver just took over as commissioner in Februrary. New administration, and he's making a statement.

Depending on whether Sterling wants to fight back that "statement" may backfire on him. We will see I suppose.
 
While I kinda like the Thunder, man, Seattle got hosed in that deal when they lost the Sonics.

And guess who the head of the relocation committee is? None other than the dickhead Clay Bennett.
 
Back
Top Bottom