Last Updated Apr 29, 2014 4:40 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling has been banned for life by the NBA in response to racist comments the league says he made in a recorded conversation.

Commissioner Adam Silver said he would call on the owners to vote to force Sterling to sell the team, which would require approval of three-quarters of the current owners. Sterling has also been fined $2.5 million, and Silver made no effort to hide his outrage over the comments, calling them "deeply disturbing and harmful."

"I fully expect to get the support I need from the other NBA owners to remove him," Silver said.

http://deadspin.com/donald-sterling-banned-for-life-1569362701?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Audio:
http://deadspin.com/donald-sterling-still-a-vicious-racist-according-to-tm-1567966769

Transcript:
http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249

I thought everyone was entitled to their own opinion?

http://www.tubeplus.me/player/2141280/The_Boondocks/season_4/episode_2/Good_Times/

How dare he talk about the color of my belief like that ... he should be fined 2.5 million for such remarks and be banned from radio.

I thought everyone was entitled to their own opinion?

Yes, everyone is. But so is the NBA.

I'm not defending the guy's remarks in any way, but isn't it interesting that an illegal recording of a conversation resulted in absolutely zero consequences for the person that made the recording?

Not really. I think pretty much everyone is over being outraged about illegal recordings, videos, pictures, etc. The concept of private conversations in this day and age is fading fast, and it may not be good, but there is fuck all anyone can do about it. Being upset that pretty much everything we say or do can be and sometimes is recorded makes about as much sense as being upset that so few places have a good hitching post for one's horse anymore. It's just a fact of life in 2014.

Yeah a lot of places don't even have a decent pole to chain your bike to.

Not really. I think pretty much everyone is over being outraged about illegal recordings, videos, pictures, etc. The concept of private conversations in this day and age is fading fast, and it may not be good, but there is fuck all anyone can do about it. Being upset that pretty much everything we say or do can be and sometimes is recorded makes about as much sense as being upset that so few places have a good hitching post for one's horse anymore. It's just a fact of life in 2014.

That's pretty defeatist, isn't it?  The fact of the matter is that there are laws that prevent people from recording you without first informing you and getting your consent to be recorded.  These laws don't apply in public situations which is why surveillance cameras are legal in parking lots but not in changing rooms.  The NSA hides behind national security to record literally every digital transmission you make (phone calls, texts, internet posts like this one, blogs, the lot) but the recording of conversations between private citizens is still against the law and should remain so to prevent situations like this where someone who you've pissed-off somehow from recording you making an ass out of yourself for the purposes of extorting your money and your life from you.

I'll repeat, it couldn't've happened to a better douchebag, but it sets a dangerous precedent.

Agreed ...

Not really. I think pretty much everyone is over being outraged about illegal recordings, videos, pictures, etc. The concept of private conversations in this day and age is fading fast, and it may not be good, but there is fuck all anyone can do about it. Being upset that pretty much everything we say or do can be and sometimes is recorded makes about as much sense as being upset that so few places have a good hitching post for one's horse anymore. It's just a fact of life in 2014.

That's pretty defeatist, isn't it?

Sure, but what can I, you, or anyone else do about it? More importantly, what will we do about it?

Nothing.

What we can do about it is to fight them every chance we can and not let them get away with their crap.  They want to listen to everything you say and jump all over you for saying things that aren't popular or they don't agree with.  The answer isn't to stop talking, it's to get in their faces and DARE them to start sh-t and not back off until either they stop or they kill you.  I've said in a few places that the only way I'll shut up with my real opinions is when I'm dead.  I've made my choice on that matter, and I'd rather not live than have to look over my shoulder constantly in fear that something I said in an obscure website will bring down the wrath of the feds' alphabet agencies.

I know not everyone here is American but seriously, that's how bad it's getting here.  If you're not a boot-licking, ass-kissing liberal, you're labeled a terrorist.  Dark days indeed.

DARE them to start sh-t ......

You know, you don't have to edit yourself or hold back in here; right?

DARE them to start sh-t ......

You know, you don't have to edit yourself or hold back in here; right?

This place is just as easily read by anyone looking as anywhere else. But he certainly won't face censorship from anyone here, valid point.

What we can do about it is to fight them every chance we can and not let them get away with their crap.

But what does that mean, anyway? I mean in a day-to-day, real-life context. Just keep talking, on phones, internet, etc? Keep espousing whatever views you have? If that's the case, I think you're biting off a very reasonable amount to chew, and will have no issues whatsoever with censorship or being recorded. You'll probably be recorded, sure, but unless you're planning on doing something really illegal and talking about it brazenly, the fact of the matter is that "they" just don't care.

They want to listen to everything you say and jump all over you for saying things that aren't popular or they don't agree with.  The answer isn't to stop talking, it's to get in their faces and DARE them to start sh-t and not back off until either they stop or they kill you.  I've said in a few places that the only way I'll shut up with my real opinions is when I'm dead.  I've made my choice on that matter, and I'd rather not live than have to look over my shoulder constantly in fear that something I said in an obscure website will bring down the wrath of the feds' alphabet agencies.

I know not everyone here is American but seriously, that's how bad it's getting here.  If you're not a boot-licking, ass-kissing liberal, you're labeled a terrorist.  Dark days indeed.

I don't buy that at all, pretty much not a word of it. What opinions are being silenced? We're living in the golden age of every idiot with something to say being able to say it. Myself included, of course.

Again, short of threatening to harm or kill someone, talking about making explosives, or basically doing anything really fucking harmful to society, I just don't think anyone gives a fuck what any given person cares to rant about. We're not that important in the grand scheme of things.

I think you are right Si, talking expels energy but attracts attention from the wrong people.
It could be time for people to step up and take more serious action but who will lead the charge.
And even if he were correct in his actions he would still be labeled terrorist and the media would assure that the predominance of the public were swayed towards that opinion.

So yep pretty much a helpless situation with no recourse.

FAH-Q - You're right for the most part.  The average Joe has almost nothing to worry about in terms of spouting his mouth off unless he's talking about blowing shit up or killing people.  However, if you start getting popular (50,000 Twitter followers, high profile job, etc.) and if you hold an unpopular view (racism, constitutionality, gun rights, home schooling, etc.) those in power notice and come down hard.  I know the things I've said online would get me canned if I was the owner of a football team or was on TV, but since I'm just a guy with internet access and a very limited audience, I have the illusion of free speech.  The moment I get popular the thugs will descend with whatever dirt they felt like fabricating that day to shut me up.

Take Cliven Bundy, the cattle rancher in Nevada who disagrees with the federal government assessment that he owes them over a million dollars in grazing fees and feels so strongly that he continues to say no in the face of snipers and hundreds of armed federal thugs.  Now, before the feds showed up, no one knew who Cliven Bundy was, nor did they give a fuck about the plight of an 80-year-old cattle rancher in the "Wild West".  But, now that he's drawn attention to himself and what's going on at his ranch, the media is now twisting things he says in interviews and speeches to the assembled crowd to make him appear racist, thus rendering his opinion and everything he stands for irrelevant by default.

And while I'm on racism, that is one of the ways the power structure uses to shut influential people up.  There's a clear and researchable pattern to their method of discreditation.  First, they'll label your views as "conspiracy theory".  If you still gain popularity, they'll label you and your followers "racist".  If that still doesn't work to their liking, they'll either try to set you up in the presence of a prostitute and thousands of cameras and edit the encounter to appear "scandalous" or they'll plant "kiddie pron" on you hard drive and drag your name through the thick clingy mud of child abuse charges (knowing that even if the charges don't stick, just being accused is enough for a lot of people).  But if you're more careful with your associates (so the prostitution thing won't work) and internet security (so they can't plant anything untoward on your drives) they'll just plant a bomb on your car and have an "eyewitness" report a drunk driver hit a tree/lamp post/freeway overpass.  And I can easily dig up stories to back up each of these examples.

I said recently that this government will do to the ends of the Earth and send countless people to die for your right to free speech, but only if no one hears you.

since I'm just a guy with internet access and a very limited audience, I have the illusion of free speech.

No, you have the reality of free speech. Being rich or famous both come with major drawbacks. Still, I bet if you were to offer most people Donald Sterling's money, with the caveat that anything stupid they say could bite them that much harder in the ass, they'd still jump at the offer. On the other hand, I bet you Sterling wouldn't trade his fortune for the ability to be a racist shithead in peace, either.

And while I'm on racism, that is one of the ways the power structure uses to shut influential people up.

By exposing them or threatening to expose them as racists? They have to actually be racist, or at least say racist stuff for that to work.

If that still doesn't work to their liking, they'll either try to set you up in the presence of a prostitute and thousands of cameras and edit the encounter to appear "scandalous" or they'll plant "kiddie pron" on you hard drive and drag your name through the thick clingy mud of child abuse charges (knowing that even if the charges don't stick, just being accused is enough for a lot of people).

This I can agree a lot more with. Honey traps attack one of the most basic weaknesses of almost everyone, and you're right that accusations of rape or anything to do with children is enough to ruin almost anyone, guilty or not.

But if you're more careful with your associates (so the prostitution thing won't work) and internet security (so they can't plant anything untoward on your drives) they'll just plant a bomb on your car and have an "eyewitness" report a drunk driver hit a tree/lamp post/freeway overpass.  And I can easily dig up stories to back up each of these examples.

...aaaand you lost me again. Who the fuck are "they"? Who is this vast conspiracy you believe could actually exist, and keep stuff like this secret? And, for that matter, what sort of opinion (and just an opinion, because bear in mind we're talking about free speech here, not repercussions for actions - just speech) could possibly be so dangerous or inflammatory to make it worth it for "them" to shut people up that way? If Snowden hasn't been snuffed, what kind of internet rant do you think Joe Schmo could possibly post that would be worth some kind of James Bond assassination shit?

While we're on the subject of actions vs words, btw, it would be worth mentioning that Donald Sterling has been more than a racist asshole for a long time now. He doesn't just hate-speak, he hate-does, and any comeuppance he's facing now is long-deserved for multiple reasons.

>>what sort of opinion (and just an opinion, because bear in mind we're talking about free speech here, not repercussions for actions - just speech) could possibly be so dangerous or inflammatory to make it worth it for "them" to shut people up that way? <<

Umm, I was visited by the secret service for suggesting we put bush's head on a pole to make peace with the so called terrorists. (who have very good reasons for their opinions)

"They" just wanted me to shut up.

Yeah, and here you are, posting whatever you want. Not in jail, not dead, not anything other than warned that these people take threats, even silly internet threats, very seriously when they involve the president.

Scary, yes, I'm sure. But free speech has always had limitations, it has to. It's an overused example, but you're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded cinema. Or you are, but you'll find yourself in trouble for doing so. And there have been assassinations and attempted assassinations on presidents before. They have to take that shit seriously. As anti-censorship as I am and always have been, I do not consider it a big deal that you're not allowed to make death threats to people. That does not constitute an oppressive government, sorry. None of us on this message board are living in fucking Swaziland.

>>Scary, yes,<<

Yes.

Yeah, and here you are, posting whatever you want. Not in jail, not dead, not anything other than warned that these people take threats, even silly internet threats, very seriously when they involve the president.

That's because this board has a total audience of 5 (6 if I include my cat who is staring over my shoulder).  The guy I was referring to that was killed by remote car bomb was Michael Hastings who had (stupidly) told colleagues he had information about some general and was going to publish a story that would end his career.  I don't remember specifics but what happened was his car exploded and hit a light pole at what observers called a "high rate of speed".  The media said he had been drinking, yet his friends and family said he didn't drink and drove like an old person.  And there's no way to prove he wasn't drinking because he was incinerated in the fire. 

So to answer your question, "they" is *always* criminal elements of the government.  *They* are the only people who would have the resources to kill their enemies in new and exiting ways AND have the media cover it all up for them while labeling everyone that doesn't buy the lame-ass cover story a "conspiracy theorist".

This:

Yeah, and here you are, posting whatever you want. Not in jail, not dead, not anything other than warned that these people take threats, even silly internet threats, very seriously when they involve the president.

was in response to this:

>>what sort of opinion (and just an opinion, because bear in mind we're talking about free speech here, not repercussions for actions - just speech) could possibly be so dangerous or inflammatory to make it worth it for "them" to shut people up that way? <<

Umm, I was visited by the secret service for suggesting we put bush's head on a pole to make peace with the so called terrorists. (who have very good reasons for their opinions)

"They" just wanted me to shut up.

The US government has curtailed free speech from nearly the very beginning - see Alien and Sedition acts of 1798, which were used to silence opposition to John Adams.  Subsequent acts, like the Espionage act of 1917 for example, also serve the broader goal of silencing criticism and opposition to the government (Snowden is charged under that one, for instance).  And then you have active government intervention like COINTELPRO, which of course continues under different guise today.  So there is (and always has been) a chill on free speech, in particular any speech that is seen to potentially impact the stability of the state.

Outside that arena, people do have free speech - as in the government isn't going to restrict you.  Your restrictions beyond the government are varied - access to people that want to hear what you have to say, outlets that want to broadcast what you say, private agreements you enter into, your ability to yell louder than someone who would rather shout you down, etc. 

Sterling is an example of someone who entered into a private agreement with the NBA.  He can still say whatever he wants, but his continued association with the NBA is subject to that agreement (and the will of the NBA to enforce it, which the previous commissioner was not willing to do).  Sterling is apparently monumentally stupid, as he allegedly knew that his mistress was taping him...given his history, I suppose he though he'd always be able to buy his way out of trouble with another donation to the NAACP.

Sterling aside, if you want to work for Catholic charities, one of their terms of employment is to be a professing Catholic.  If you go on Twitter and talk shit about your employer, they may be able to fire you under the terms of your employment contract and state law.  You might settle a lawsuit with a business and agree not to talk shit about them as a term.  Being an employee or entering into a private contract puts constraints on you, but these constraints are economic, not government edict.  The degree to which those economic constraints on public speech are important to an individual depends on things like personal wealth (who cares if I get fired), autonomy (if you own your business, you won't get fired), and of course community mores (for instance, the impact of the ChikFilA owner's bigotry varying according to community).

Also at play in public cases: the FCC ceased enforcing the fairness doctrine under Reagan and the language was formally struck under Obama.  The obligation for holders of broadcast licenses to be fair, equitable, and honest as a term of that license disappeared. 

Yeah, a lot of people don't understand that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private corporations.  Sure, there are other laws that govern corporate speech (anti-discrimination for example) but the NBA has every right to do what they did to Sterling.  My beef is that there haven't been any charges filed against the person who recorded that conversation.  As far as I understand the law, the NBA doesn't have to take Sterling back even if charges are filed and he somehow wins.