I think it's sad to even think of "racism". For me there is nothing such as that since it does not exist... It's just a mental spirit that is corrupted

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I agree it is an attack on free speech. **It is never acceptable for a __government__ to attack or punish these words.** However when the "punishment" comes from peers, bosses, customers, employees, etc. in the form of economic sanctions that is //very much// OK. Sending Sterling to jail would have been unacceptable and very wrong, firing him, boycotting his "company", quitting the team, and other forms of protest are, in and of themselves, forms of "freespeech" and deserve equal protection under the law. Sterling, a sad old man in my eyes, got what he deserved - a comeuppance.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Yea people are over sensitive these days...when they're trying to appear politically correct. Behind closed doors anything goes but when it's leaked out they're punished HARDCORE for it.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

For the most part, I agree with your overall point. But do we honestly as a society want to live in an environment where we are all listening to every word from others, recording them, and then going public with them for the purpose of seeing someone get in trouble or lose a job? That is so twisted in my opinion. And what about those who are extremely racist but getting a completely free pass? I would cite Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan as prime examples of black men who are racist. Their words are not recorded in secret and then revealed - they speak in public regularly. None of them have been threatened with losing their jobs for the vicious and hateful things they have said. Essentially, your comment seems to support people being punished as long as a majority of people are against what a person is doing. That appears to be a form of morality and judgment. Where is the constant or standard when dealing with such issues? And do we really want public outcry to be the deciding factor for any and all issues regarding speech or race?

by Anonymous 9 years ago

What? Who's going to fire them? They are self-employed. And plenty of people have written them off, including you and me. The NBA "fired" Sterling for economic reasons, they feared a drop-off in ticket sales or a walk-out of their star players. He's a wanker and he lost his "job" for opening is big mouth. I for one would never pay to see Sharpton, Wright, Farrakhan, Sterling, The Duck guy, Michael Richards or any other racist pig speak so **//I//** "fired" them all.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

A HUGE help would be if the media would quit giving all these clowns attention and coverage. The less exposure, the less anyone would know or care. But how would Sterling have ever dreamed that a private conversation would ever go public? Like I said in the explanation, ALL of us have said things in private that we would not want to go public. That is the beauty of privacy. Maybe we should all just keep our thoughts in our head, and stop communicating.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I hear you. But seriously, nobody has any expectation of privacy in today's world. Big Brother is here to stay. If you want to say something in private you got to go out in the woods. NSA is listening on our cell phones even if they are turned off. Most home alarm systems these days record everything. How did this get recorded unless he knew about it? It had to be his a recording device it was his house! His voice stayed clear and her faded in and out - so he was the one recording it not her.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Check out the links I posted a bit earlier this eve. It looks like he consented to the thing being recorded on his girlfriend's phone. It all went down at her condo which he paid for and put in her name. They were at the same location when it was recorded - which seems totally bizarre to me. Evidently, she was posting pictures of black basketball players on her Instagram site, and he did not approve. She did the recording, and then gave a copy to her good girl friend. The girl friend (hers) is the one that released it. Supposedly Sterling's girlfriend did not know it was going public until TMZ told her so [this is what her attorney is claiming]. Why it was ever recorded is still beyond me. It makes no sense.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I could guess he consented from the recording. I have only listened to the short clip and the TMZ original.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Someone care to give me a quick, up to date, paragraph or less synopsis of this whole ordeal? I'm too lazy and apathetic to look through detailed news articles about something I don't care about.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/oprah-trayvon-martin-emmett-till_n_3707096.html I am giving you a "leftist" link just so you can see I was not swayed purely by FOX news. In my view, when a black person automatically assumes the worst when a white or hispanic [in this case, they even invented a new race - "white hispanic" for Zimmerman] is involved in any violent ordeal or murder with a black person, that is clearly racism. Oprah showed her blatant racism by making the comparison of what she judged Zimmerman of doing [murdering Trayvon Martin in cold blood] to that of a young man back in the 50's - Emmett Till. If you will Google Emmett Till and read the Wikipedia bio of this story, you will easily find that what happened between Zimmerman and Martin was not even remotely similar to the brutal killing of Till. Oprah, and a host of other black people wanted the Zimmerman case to be racism so bad, they displayed their own racist remarks and views. They were dead certain that Zimmerman was "guilty" - and the media crucified him even before his trial. He had a fair trial, and was not found guilty - but to this day, many blacks believe he was. Stevie Wonder protested by saying he would never perform in Florida again. Akon told all blacks to pack their bags and move to Africa immediately! He told them that America was not their home. Oprah, Sharpton, and most black activists are NOT on a daily or regular basis calling out the black community for black on black crimes OR when blacks commit heinous crimes and murders against white people. And that is another display of racism. Their silence is indication that they see no problem with those scenarios. It is only when they believe a black person has been violated or killed unjustly or wrongly [by the evil white master]. This is the only time we hear their tirades and rants. Oprah "apologized" because of the outrage she received from the ignorance of her comparison. But in my opinion (just like the Sterling story), Oprah and others only apologize when they get push back from tons of people - but they meant full well what they said and it came from their hearts and minds. It is what they truly believe and feel.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I guess we need to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see this Oprah things as even remotely racist. And she didn't invent "white-hispanic" it has been on the US census forms for at least 3 decades. It is racist but it is also common useage and should be eliminated in my opinion.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Alrighty then................

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Racism is a double edged sword. It goes both ways and neither party is right, REGARDLESS if they feel they have been wronged. Most people don't understand that two wrongs don't make a right. If you hate/attack/put down somebody because of their race, whether they are white, black, asian, or martian, then you are being racist. End of story.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I agree. Obviously when the government does this, we have a problem. Yet, in Sterling's case, it was a company. Getting fired, I see as justified since keeping him could affect the NBA economically. Still, I feel that that the ban and fine were not justified. If he wants to go to a game of a sport primarily played by black players and get his *ss kicked by the fans, I think that should be his right. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what the ban actually entails...

by Anonymous 9 years ago

There's a difference between speaking freely and just being an asshat.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Yes and no. Asshatism is a subset of speaking freely :D

by Anonymous 9 years ago

You've got a point I simply cannot argue. Props to you.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Free Speech would also include the freedom to voice your contempt for racist statements. Attacking and punishing them is an extension of the same free speech that would allow someone to make the racist statement.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

He doesn't just mean vocal punishment.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Free speech is a misnomer for free ideas. Speech is only the way in which we express our ideas. If we punish someone, not matter how, that is an expression of our ideas. To suppress it would be to limit our free "speech".

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Then we could just say that people going around punishing black people with their fists for being black is an expression of their "speech"

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Indeed we could.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

I'm quite certain that punishing people isn't part of the same kind of free speech.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

That is just you drawing an arbitrary line of what you believe is "free speech" in order to defend it.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

"Freedom of speech is the politic right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to **anyone who is willing to receive them**."

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Interesting. I'll admit that I did not know this definition, I was discussing from the viewpoint of absolute freedom of speech. Of course by the definition you supplied, it would mean that "When racist statements are attacked and punished, free speech is always the loser" is false since racism isn't something that people generally are willing to receive.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

People can choose to receive the racists message. Some people do choose to receive them. Some of them are the retaliators. However, the retaliators punishing the racist is not something the racist was willing to receive. I hope I explained that correctly.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

First of all, "When racist statements are attacked and punished, free speech is always the loser. Amirite?" As this states that it is always the case, and we have agreed a situation upon which it isn't the case, it means that the original statement is False. Secondly, on to the continuation of our discussion. I say with great certainty that while there may be a few who like receiving racist messages in order to retaliate, the vast, vast, majority of those who retaliate would like nothing better than not having anything to retaliate against. They did not choose to receive these messages, but received them anyway and it is from that standpoint they retaliate.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Yeah I gotta disagree with the post now. Anyway, I don't know how the government or the OP define free speech so maybe I shouldn't be the one to know what either mean by the expression. And I can't think of a way to define it how I see it presently.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

You do NOT have to agree with or like any statement to allow it to stand on its own "free" expression. As I have pointed out on this very sight - Amirite may not and does not have to AGREE with my saying "the world can go fuck itself" to allow me to say it and post it. By them allowing me to say what I want, they are not agreeing with or endorsing the statement - they are simply being a non partial venue for me to express such. Many of us do not agree with or like things we see and hear every single day, but that still pass under the banner of "free speech." There are many song lyrics, video and movie content, works of art, advertising, bill boards, posters, banners, etc. that we are exposed to in public that may contain elements of racism, sexism, prejudice, bias, stereotypes, or other forms of material we find "offensive" or disgusting. Does that give me, you, or any group the RIGHT to seek ways to stop those people or forms of expression from ever existing? I say absolutely not! The minute we take away one person's right or freedom to say anything (even if we disagree with it), we are on the pathway to limiting and restricting the rights and freedoms of any and all we decide to single out. Nobody wants religion to decide these things for us, so why are people so willing to allow a government or courts to make such decisions FOR us? Quite frankly, it is our right to retain our freedoms - even when it comes to speech. Am I against racism? Yes. Do I support the right of the racist to say and express his/her views openly and at any time? Absolutely. Ideas and words are just like anything else in the world - the good and best ones rise to the top and receive endorsement and following. The bad and worst ones may gather up cells of followers here and there, but they will never be the dominant ideas or words that the masses govern themselves or live by. I stand 100% by my original statement in the post - all of free speech took a blow and loss by/from this incident.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Freedom of speech is about being able to speak out against the government without being punished for it. Not about being able to just turn off your filter and blurt out whatever goes through your head, like most people seem to think.

by Anonymous 9 years ago

Racists statements are covered by free speech. OP said: Attacked __and__ punished. I have no problem with "attacked", my concern is when they are "punished" **by the government.** I also have no problem when they are "punished" by employers, fans, customers, etc. That type of "punishment" is also "free speech."

by Anonymous 9 years ago