NBA Commits Foul on Capitalism, Free Speech

NBA Commits Foul on Capitalism, Free Speech

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 30, 2014

The NBA and its new commissioner, Adam Silver, have dealt capitalism and free speech a black eye with the lifetime ban imposed upon Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers.

In addition to the lifetime ban, Sterling was also saddled with a fine of $2.5 million, the maximum allowable as per the NBA Constitution, and Silver indicated he would push to force the sale of the Clippers. The fine is negligible – roughly equivalent to $50 for Sterling, worth over $1.9 billion. The lifetime ban means Sterling can have no contact with players, or anyone else affiliated with the team, he may not attend games, play any role in transactions or drafting rookies, or anything else the NBA deems “contact.”

The harshness for which Sterling is being penalized comes on the heels of audio tape released just several days prior to Silver’s declaration with Sterling carrying on in a racist screed – telling his girlfriend/mistress not to attend “his” games with blacks and not to post photographs of herself with blacks on social media. Sterling further verbally eviscerated blacks in ways that might make a Klansman blush right through his hood.

But knowledge of Sterling’s unsavory opinions has been common knowledge for years, which begs the question, why now? Why has the world exploded in outrage now? Has Sterling changed his stripes since his 2009 housing discrimination case that cost him $2.7 million? (Yet another drop in the bucket to Sterling.) This is demonstrative of the NBA’s hypocrisy for not attempting to rid itself of Sterling, the league’s longest tenured owner, years ago.

Just as big a piece of hypocrisy is the NAACP, set to honor Sterling for the second time, with a lifetime achievement award but has since rescinded the honor. Yet, the civil rights organization continues marching forward with its plans to honor Al Sharpton, a racist in his own right, originally on the same dance card with Sterling.

The brash owner of the Clippers may be despicable for his views and opinions, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives Sterling the right to be such a rapscallion. (http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2014/04/donald-sterling-tarnishing-only-himself.html)

What is really daunting and quite frankly more than just a bit frightening, is that Sterling’s words were uttered within the confines and supposed privacy of his own home. Is the sanctity of a person’s home as his castle a faded memory for the dustbin of history? Is a person not free to say as he wishes behind closed doors?

There has been some debate regarding the procurement of the recordings. Did Sterling ask his girlfriend/mistress to record him because he claimed he was becoming forgetful? Did she do so under her own volition, thus, in California, making those recordings illegal? That may seem to be less than a minor point to those seeking Sterling’s head on a stick, as well as to those wanting to separate Sterling from his personal property – the Clippers basketball team.

Therein lies just part of the problem. Does anyone with any public standing now need to couch every utterance in a politically correct manner for fear of loss of livelihood? And what will be next, after racist rants? Will the ethnic jokes told at home cause people to lose jobs, income, and future employment? What about remarks about a person’s sexuality or gender? Are people only permitted to have opinions approved by the so-called tolerance cabal in the United States?

Why is acceptable for NBA players to use language worse than that of Sterling without castigation or forced retribution? After all, black ballplayers toss around the word “nigger,” akin to the word hello. NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar took exception to these pronouncements. “I think black Americans should avoid using that word,” said Jabbar. He also said the current generation of players needs to be reminded what things were like during the Civil Rights Movement and challenges blacks endured.

And as for the potential loss of his team, Sterling should fight this as far as he can take it – he certainly has the resources, and he should do so if for no other reason, than principle. For while the NBA owners, according to its constitution, can force Sterling to sell the Clippers, with a three-fourths vote, the United States Constitution supersedes an NBA or corporate constitution.

How is it that Sterling can be stripped of his legally owned property simply for having privately uttered his opinion? Granted it is a distasteful and unacceptable opinion, but having distasteful and unacceptable opinions is not against the law.

With Sterling’s Clippers in the playoffs, an anomaly for this team, their value is sure to continue to rise. Currently worth an estimated more than $550 million, Sterling could reap a huge profit, considering he has owned the team since 1981. But money is not the issue with Sterling at this point; after all, the octogenarian has just become a pariah in his own league – persona non grata and if he chooses, he can make life difficult for the other owners and the image of the league as a whole just by dragging the NBA through the court system.

Dallas Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban, while supporting the decision by Silver and the NBA, also expressed concern for a potential slippery slope. He questioned the length to which the league could go under any circumstance, and not just meting out the punishment for Sterling’s assumed offenses, but denying people their rights or attempts to commandeer their property.

This situation could have been self-correcting by letting the free market speak for itself, and not some imposed mandate. With Sterling still atop the Clippers’ corporate chart, advertisers would continue to abandon ship, as has been the case over the past four days. Fans would boycott the team, nary a ticket would be sold, and revenue would evaporate where food, beverage, and merchandise would have filled the coffers. Current players would demand trades, but who would want to play for the Clippers? How many rookies could be lured to Los Angeles and how productive could an all-rookie team be?

All or any combination of those variables would probably cause Sterling to sell the team under his own volition, and not because it is demanded of him. The vox populi would have spoken loud and clear, and short of driving the value of the team below the San Andreas Fault, Sterling would sell the remaining pieces for scrap.

Until the free market weighs in, Sterling is a victim, albeit one for whom one should not feel sorry, but one entitled to the same rights as every other American citizen. If Sterling’s livelihood be taken away for offering up his private thoughts at home, how far away from the thought police can this so-called civilization be?

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Donald Sterling - Tarnishing Only Himself

Donald Sterling – Tarnishing Only Himself

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 28, 2014

Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA franchise, may not be a nice guy. Seems he is a narcissistic, cantankerous, lecherous, Neanderthal, blowhole, obsequious weasel of a racist, but as of yet, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States still applies to him.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” is oft-attributed to Voltaire. In fact, what he wrote to someone named M. le Riche in 1770 was “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write,” share the same sentiment.

Ironically, Voltaire was deemed an anti-Semite, but that may be more to the point. The answer to hate speech is not less speech, but more speech. And while folks may not like or agree with Sterling’s words or attitudes, his right to disseminate them remains intact, provided he is not calling for violence (shouting fire in a crowded theater).

The knee-jerk liberal, politically correct, hand-wringing, righteous indignation piling on demanding that Sterling be flogged, have his tongue removed, have his team taken from him, be fined, be banned from not just the NBA, but the planet, is far too over the top. While Sterling’s words are hateful and hurtful, they are not against the law.

The crux of Sterling’s most recent alleged remarks was that he told his girlfriend in a private, yet recorded conversation, not to bring her black friends to his games or to promote her relationships with them on social media. And this is not Sterling’s first ride on the racial bus having been accused of, and paid fines for, discriminating against blacks and Hispanics regarding fair housing practices in 2006.

Believe it or not, something Barack Obama said over the weekend resonated with me, and for those who read me with any regularity, I know you are shocked.

“When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk,” said Obama, a master at taking his own advice.

Obama’s words make sense, and quite frankly should be all that is necessary. Let Sterling’s words speak for themselves and people will opine with their wallets. Will season ticket sales rise or fall due to his words? Will sale of Clippers merchandise rise or fall due to his words? Will advertisers clip the Clippers due to his words? This should be self-correcting - not mandated by outside forces such as the race hustlers.

Perhaps all the players on his team will seek to leave the Clippers and play elsewhere – that is their choice – if they can find a loophole in their contract. The players are just as entitled to offer their opinions, as they did prior to Sunday’s game by dumping their warm-up jackets to reveal tee-shirts turned inside out hiding the Clippers’ logo.

Hall of Famer Magic Johnson said he would not attend another Clippers game as long as Sterling is the owner – he is speaking with his wallet and there are many who admire Johnson and will follow suit.

The words from two USA Today sports writers also kicked in with their indignation calling for Sterling’s banishment, but they are both wrong on several levels.

Nancy Armour prefers to put the cart before the horse, shoot first and ask questions later, if at all in her screed “Easy Decision: Ban Sterling.” (April 27, 2014) She called out new NBA Commissioner Adam Silver saying he failed his first big test by not suspending Sterling.

Silver correctly said that “all members of the NBA family should be afforded due process and a fair opportunity to present their side of any controversy.”

Armour continued her cart-horse assassination of Sterling writing that there are no “sides” to this, and that “Silver should ban him from the NBA immediately. And permanently.” Should that disqualify anyone from a team ownership because they might have a distasteful opinion according to what is popular or politically correct?

Sam Amick went farther than Armour in his “NBA Must Stand Firm,” by dragging Sterling’s wife into the mix. “…the wife of the shamed Sterling, Shelly, made the inane and insensitive choice to not only attend the game but sit in her standard seats – directly across from the team on which 12 of 14 players are African American.” (April 28, 2014) As is head coach Doc Rivers.

What does Shelly Sterling have to do with this? The allegedly offensive remarks were not even made to her, but instead to Donald Sterling’s girlfriend – who happens to be a minority. The salacious simply increases the story’s sleaze factor, as Amick went on to describe Shelly Sterling’s game day wardrobe, including interpreting what it might mean.

Amick further wrote that “…Sterling simply must get the message that he is no longer wanted in these parts.”

Other Hall of Famers such as Michael Jordan, current owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, and Charles Barkley, now an NBA TV analyst, both weighed in, not surprisingly, calling for Sterling’s permanent ouster from the fraternity of team owners. So too did Hall of Famer Elgin Baylor, a former Clippers General Manager, who called the environment of the team a “plantation mentality.”

If Armour, Amick, the host of NBA players past and present, and Obama are entitled to their opinions, why isn’t Sterling – as controversial as they may be?

But remember, Sterling pays his players, coaches, and staff – they are not volunteers, indentured servants, or slaves. He wants a winning team. A winning team sells more merchandise and puts more tuchuses in the seats buying overpriced food and beverages. Let the chips fall where they may through natural progression – perhaps all advertisers will take their business elsewhere – Los Angeles is a big city with other sports teams – even within the Staples Center.

Bottom line is, Donald Sterling owns the Los Angeles Clippers, and the league cannot take that away from him without violating his rights. They may try, and the legal skirmish will no doubt be as ugly as Sterling’s opinions, but that is the price paid for living in a reasonably free society. In fact, Sterling is the longest tenured owner having purchased the team in 1981.

While this is not much ado about nothing, more is being made of it than ought to be as this story is dominating the news cycle when there are bigger fish to fry. The death of veterans waiting to receive medical care is an outrage of epic proportions. Benghazi, the IRS scandal, poisonous food being imported from China, the Ukraine, as well as Holocaust Remembrance Week are all infinitely more important from the perspective of societal ills and national disgraces.

Donald Sterling may be a 14 karat schmuck, but the First Amendment still protects his right to be so and Barack Obama’s words should be heard, reminding people that Sterling’s words should speak for themselves. Any calls to strip Sterling of his team and deny him his livelihood are simply un-American, going beyond what even George Orwell could have imagined.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.