Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35898 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:03 pm Post subject:
Do people not understand how illegal this is?
When I'm lucky, I sometimes get to have private conversations with people I find really awesome, and those conversations do in fact turn out to be special moments in my life. Sure, it's crossed my mind that "This conversation is going to be one of the best ones in my life and maybe I should tape it," but out of respect for the other person, I don't.
It's not about whether or not you get caught-- it's about having the basic decency and respect to not tape someone in something that is supposed to be off-the-record. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses. _________________ -Avenue of the Champions- -RIP Dr Buss- #824
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52663 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:12 pm Post subject:
PrairieAve wrote:
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
ikr? Then again I haven't been following much of the NBA as I have in the past until all the news outlets and social media have been flooded with all the drama unraveling in the NBA right now. _________________ Pancho's Happy Bottom Riding Club
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
Well his private opinions damaged the brand. How they were obtained wasn't benevolent. Where can the league go now to assume a position of being "damaged"?
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52663 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:00 pm Post subject:
vanexelent wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
PrairieAve wrote:
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
Well his private opinions damaged the brand. How they were obtained wasn't benevolent. Where can the league go now to assume a position of being "damaged"?
According to the "girlfriend" the taping was mutually acknowledge. But regardless of whether that's true or not, that's for Sterling to take up in court with his "girlfriend". The cat is out of the bag now. It's public and the NBA had to deal with it. How Sterlings words became public is pertinent to Mr. Sterling, not the NBA.
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
Regardless, he didn't do anything actionable. He didn't issue an order or ultimatum to his "girlfriend." He just made a lot of disturbing racist and misogynist comments... behind closed doors. That's as intimate a breach of privacy as it gets (even if he consented to recording the conversation). Screw Sterling, but I hope the same thing doesn't happen to me, or anyone who takes a controversial, or "burdensome," stance... in their own house. I mean, the next step after your house, is your web searches, or facial expressions. _________________ -Avenue of the Champions- -RIP Dr Buss- #824
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
Regardless, he didn't do anything actionable. He didn't issue an order or ultimatum to his "girlfriend." He just made a lot of disturbing racist and misogynist comments... behind closed doors. That's as intimate a breach of privacy as it gets (even if he consented to recording the conversation). Screw Sterling, but I hope the same thing doesn't happen to me, or anyone who takes a controversial, or "burdensome," stance... in their own house. I mean, the next step after your house, is your web searches, or facial expressions.
I can already picture the LGTB going after the Magic owner now that the NBA is cleaning house. I'd like to see groups go after the Dwight Howard's of the world and all their illegitimate kids. Not a positive image for the league. Let's get everyone we don't agree with out of the league.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52663 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:19 pm Post subject:
PrairieAve wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
PrairieAve wrote:
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
Regardless, he didn't do anything actionable.
There are not actionable criminally. But regardless of how is words came to light, they did. Thus, the NBA had to deal with it. And under Sterlings agreement with the NBA by virtue of its constitution, his character reflects on the NBA and is thus actionable by the NBA.
Sterlings recourse in regards to the words becoming public is against the "girlfriend" who taped him illegally, and/or released the private conversation. That's not the NBA's issue. They can only do what they need to in the aftermath to deal with it's impact on the league.
Quote:
He didn't issue an order or ultimatum to his "girlfriend." He just made a lot of disturbing racist and misogynist comments... behind closed doors. That's as intimate a breach of privacy as it gets (even if he consented to recording the conversation).
Again, that breach of privacy is an issue that pertains to Sterling and his "archivist" ( ). As for his what he said to the woman in regards to black people, he issued a request as the owner of an NBA team that she not bring them to "his games" - and "ultimatum" or not, the intent of that "request" was pretty clear.
Quote:
Screw Sterling, but I hope the same thing doesn't happen to me, or anyone who takes a controversial, or "burdensome," stance... in their own house.
I can't speak for you, but I don't go on racist rants anywhere, not even in my own home. I also make it a point to not say things that I am not willing to own up to if I am called on them - whether said in private or not. And if those words do come to bite me, my problem is with myself for not being discrete enough and with the person who betrayed. I certainly am not foolish enough to think that those are "burdened" by those words don't have a right to take issue with them and react accordingly.
Quote:
I mean, the next step after your house, is your web searches, or facial expressions.
A private institution can and has banned people simply for making a public spectacle burdensome to the employer's company and brand, and the NBA is free to do the same thing. Although the examples that I'm thinking of were publicly disclosed by the employees themselves.
Racists can be racist in their own home. Even if that means they don't actually think highly of me. Because I want the right to protest wars (the W. Bush years were not a long time ago). Question legislative or social issues. Fraternize with whoever I want. Believe or not believe in a higher power. Especially behind closed doors.
There are a number of issues a person can believe in, that could threaten their health or well-being if the public caught wind of it. It's that person's choice to risk making his/her beliefs public, or not. If my true intentions that I hide behind a professional image aren't even safe in my home, then I don't live in a free society. Sterling's right to freedom of speech needs to be defended, even if he never participates in the NBA again.
DaMuleRules wrote:
Quote:
I mean, the next step after your house, is your web searches, or facial expressions.
Now you are just being absurd.
It's the year 2014 and the clock isn't winding back. _________________ -Avenue of the Champions- -RIP Dr Buss- #824
Last edited by PrairieAve on Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
I just don't agree with punishing opinions. Hate what you say, support your right to say it, etc. Yet, I'm okay with an old rich dirtbag getting the hammer, instead of a finger wag and a leave of absence. That almost never happens these days.
The NBA is just entertainment at the end of the day, and tolerating Sterling for any longer would've cast a dark cloud over the entire product. So the people on top can keep their stupid opinions in their head, and choose better immoral mistresses.
It wasn't simply a matter of punishing Sterling for his opinions. It was an issue of Sterling's comments damaging the NBA's brand. Sanctioning him for that is entirely within their rights under the by-laws that Sterling agrees to by being an owner. The same way your employer can fire you for saying or doing things that reflect poorly on your association with them. One can argue that the words were once private, but the cat is out of the bag now that they are public and they are Sterling's words.
Well his private opinions damaged the brand. How they were obtained wasn't benevolent. Where can the league go now to assume a position of being "damaged"?
Joined: 27 May 2010 Posts: 49357 Location: LA to the Bay
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:22 pm Post subject:
This thread is one of the few left on the board NOT about the Sterling situation. I got confused reading the last several replies, I thought I'd clicked on the wrong thread.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52663 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:39 pm Post subject:
PrairieAve wrote:
A private institution can and has banned people simply for making a public spectacle burdensome to the employer's company and brand, and the NBA is free to do the same thing. Although the examples that I'm thinking of were publicly disclosed by the employees themselves.
Racists can be racist in their own home. Even if that means they don't actually think highly of me. Because I want the right to protest wars (the W. Bush years were not a long time ago). Question legislative or social issues. Fraternize with whoever I want. Believe or not believe in a higher power. Especially behind closed doors.
There are a number of issues a person can believe in, that could threaten their health or well-being if the public caught wind of it. It's that person's choice to risk making his/her beliefs public, or not. If my true intentions that I hide behind a professional image aren't even safe in my home, then I don't live in a free society. Sterling's right to freedom of speech needs to be defended, even if he never participates in the NBA again.
DaMuleRules wrote:
Quote:
I mean, the next step after your house, is your web searches, or facial expressions.
Now you are just being absurd.
It's the year 2014 and the clock isn't winding back.
Very true. However, that doesn't make that comment any less absurd.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52663 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:59 pm Post subject:
PrairieAve wrote:
A private institution can and has banned people simply for making a public spectacle burdensome to the employer's company and brand, and the NBA is free to do the same thing. Although the examples that I'm thinking of were publicly disclosed by the employees themselves.
Racists can be racist in their own home. Even if that means they don't actually think highly of me. Because I want the right to protest wars (the W. Bush years were not a long time ago). Question legislative or social issues. Fraternize with whoever I want. Believe or not believe in a higher power. Especially behind closed doors.
That's all good, and we are in agreement there. But we aren't talking about our rights as a civilian. We are talking about a businessman's obligations to the agreements he entered into. Donald Sterling doesn't have a right to maintain a position as an owner. It's a privilege he has bought by paying the purchase price and agreeing to the league's by-laws.
Quote:
There are a number of issues a person can believe in, that could threaten their health or well-being if the public caught wind of it. It's that person's choice to risk making his/her beliefs public, or not. If my true intentions that I hide behind a professional image aren't even safe in my home, then I don't live in a free society. Sterling's right to freedom of speech needs to be defended, even if he never participates in the NBA again.
This isn't even remotely an issue of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment applies only to the Government inhibiting free flow of information. This is about a collection of businessmen who entered an agreement.
I don't really think it is. Politicians in free societies are already bound by their demeanor. It's a very real concern in less-than-free societies. I used to think that for us free citizens, innocuous behavior behind closed doors was safe from recourse, but the world moves quickly.
DaMuleRules wrote:
This isn't even remotely an issue of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment applies only to the Government inhibiting free flow of information. This is about a collection of businessmen who entered an agreement.
Right, my grievances here are about privacy, and not "The First Amendment." _________________ -Avenue of the Champions- -RIP Dr Buss- #824
Mark Jackson loses MSG job after Knicks ban him from plane
Mark Jackson will not be calling games on MSG Network after the Knicks objected to him being on the team’s chartered plane, The Post has learned.
MSG Network planned on having Jackson occasionally fill in for Clyde Frazier this season, but Knicks management, led by team president Leon Rose, put a kibosh on the arrangement in part due to an old quarrel with Jackson and an assistant coach, according to sources.
“We weren’t able to work something out this season,” an MSG Network spokesman told The Post.
The Knicks declined to comment.
Jackson did not return messages seeking comment.
In 2014, Darren Erman, a current Knicks assistant, was fired by Jackson — then Golden State’s head coach — with Erman an assistant on his staff.
An ESPN report shortly after stated that Erman had taped Jackson and the players unbeknownst to them.
Jackson later called Erman’s actions “inexcusable.” Jackson was fired by Golden State later that year.
Jackson went from the sideline to the booth before being released by ESPN this summer.
MSG pursued Jackson to work when Frazier was off, which would have teamed him with his longtime play-by-play partner at ESPN, Mike Breen.
Rose was the final decision maker behind not allowing Jackson on the team plane, hotel, or team bus, according to sources.
All other TV broadcasters are permitted to travel and room with the team, though there is generally little intermingling.
Rose does not speak to the media.
Jackson was expected to call all of the Knicks’ five games on their current trip.
He was not expected to make extra money as he was being paid an offset off the money that ESPN still owed him.
Jackson and his agent went through all the appropriate channels to make a deal with MSG Network possible, because ESPN had to sign off on the agreement.
This summer, Jackson, 58, was let go by ESPN during the network’s layoffs after being a mainstay with Breen and Jeff Van Gundy on its top team.
MSG Network looked into reuniting Jackson and Van Gundy with Breen.
A Van Gundy deal never came to fruition and he is now consulting for the Celtics.
Jackson and MSGN were able to agree to terms on what would have been a limited schedule before the Knicks stepped in.
Jackson, who starred as a point guard with the Knicks, has been mentioned as a potential coach for the team in the past.
He interviewed for the job in 2018, but the Knicks instead chose David Fizdale.
The setup between teams’ announcers and the coaches and players generally maintains that there is not much interaction.
In most cases, broadcasters, coaches, and players are separated on team buses and planes.
The announcers, in most cases, stay at the team hotel.
Jackson could have chosen to fly commercial, stay in a different hotel, and find a way to the arena, but it is arduous; especially with back-to-backs and without really being paid extra for his effort.
MSG Network never officially announced the Jackson deal, but reports in The Post and Daily News indicated a deal was on the brink.
With Jackson out, Wally Szczerbiak is filling in for Frazier as MSG’s game analyst.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
). As for his what he said to the woman in regards to black people, he issued a request as the owner of an NBA team that she not bring them to "his games" - and "ultimatum" or not, the intent of that "request" was pretty clear.
