<But now I feel like unleashing myself and going head first into various types of debates. I won't do it here on CG because I have too many friends here and I don't want them to see my Mr. Hyde.>

"Ooh, ooh! He's defending racism!" No, I'm not. I'm defending the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which says, <"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, <<or property>>, without due process of law">.

You might perhaps argue that the NBA can do what the government can't; but if that's the case, American citizenship wouldn't seem to mean much.

Really, this case is very troubling. Are we now in the business of criminalizing attitudes, opinions, and beliefs? And that without passing any legislation?

On the other hand, there's a difference between "free speech" and "consequence-free speech." It is not the government which is banning him from participating in the league. It is the league itself, which has rules Sterling agreed to when he joined the league.

That distinction means everything. Oy vey, I should have to point that out to a small-government conservative!?

<Are we now in the business of criminalizing attitudes, opinions, and beliefs? And that without passing any legislation?>

The NAACP was all set to give Sterling their "Man of the Year" award (they already gave him the "Lifetime Achievement" award in 2009).

All this, even though Sterling has been sued by the DOJ in 2006 for housing discrimination (against blacks people, among others), and by (former black Clipper's VP) Elgin Baylor for discriminatory statements and practices.

Why does the NAACP give honors to Sterling despite long-standing racist attitudes toward blacks?

Free speech, like any other right, does not shield you from the consequences of your actions. You can't call somebody an ugly idiot and expect them to be your friend because you were exercising your right to free speech.

Nor does the fact that other statements might have excited little or no controversy matter. Try telling that one to your mother to excuse some childish misbehavior.

Nobody is excusing Sterling's statements. What controversy there is centers around two points:

1) The appropriateness of the source of his comments.

2) Whether the punishment fits the crime.

I share the unease about the tape. Is there any of us who couldn't have our lives adversely affected, if not ruined, by a provocateur with a recording device? We all have statements and actions in our past which, if revealed, would be ruinous.

This society seems to delight in bringing down the High and Mighty; perhaps it makes us feel less Low and Powerless. Besides, when the story is broken by ann organization with the journalistic integrity and standards of TMZ, what can you do?

But despite this unease, the recording is still there. That we may disapprove of the source doesn't alter the fact that the incident happened, nor does it excuse the statement. It might not hold up in a court of law, but we're not dealing with that here.

Instead, we're dealing with a private organization with its own set of rules and regulations. As an owner, Sterling subscribed to those regulations, and must expect consequences if he violates them. If 75% of the owner want to kick him out, I don't see that he has any legal recourse. He'll sue, of course, but the issue will most likely be that he receives fair compensation for the team, not that he is allowed to retain it.

Is the punishment fair? It could hardly have been anything else, given the firestorm of reaction, capped by advertisers pulling out. Once they made it clear they would have nothing more to do with Sterling, he was a goner.

Maybe that's not fair, but that's how things operate in a world none of us inhabit, a completely different world with its own rules and standards. So, again, I beg--please save me from celebrity!

You can say whatever you want, but you must recognize that there may be consequences and you cannot expect to evade these by claiming freedom so speech. Yes, this constitutes a practical abridgment of your rights, but society cannot function without such abridgments, whether imposed from within or without.

Political correctness taken a step too far.

While I have no wish to return to the days when racist, homophobic and other negative views were routinely expressed, there is no need for everyone to seemingly apologise for their very existence. That way lies moral cowardice. The world needs people with strong convictions.

<Jim: (Sterling) IS a good lawyer. This is just starting.>

If you can be punished that severely without breaking a law, and without due process of law... then I don't think we have a rule of law.

It's true that sports leagues have always imposed sanctions on owners or players, when the league saw fit. Leo Durocher, Marge Shott, Fritz Peterson and Mike Kekich--Commissioner Bowie Kuhn suspended them for wife-swapping: remember that?--come to mind.

What NBA rules did Sterling break? I'd like to know that.

I find it troubling, the orgy of back-slapping engaged in by the nooze media.

I do think the punishment is far too severe, <if> the only evidence is this latest tape recording. If his entire history is taken into consideration, then it's defensible.

Once again, if he had said these things in a public forum or while carrying out his duties with the team, the punishment would be fair. But not for an informal conversation in his home.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMA3...