posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 11:25 PM
originally posted by: txinfidel
Yes well look no further than Donald Stirling. Now I don't agree with what the guy allegedly said. But he has a right to his opinion and definitely
has a right to speak it. Nobody has a right to strip him of his wealth without a guilty conviction for a CRIME at the very least, but instead an
outburst inside his own home.
He certainly does have a right to his opinion. He also had signed a contract when he agreed to purchase his team. Within that contract were ground
rules for appropriate behavior because the actions of a teams owner affect the entire team, and as a consequence the trickle down affects have fiscal
repercussions for the team and league as a whole. If he couldn't handle his end, the league has its own version of an escape clause to deal with
those who can't be bothered to honor their word let alone the contacts that bind that word.
And if you get right down to it, nobody is taking his wealth at all either. In fact, he's going to make a massive profit off of the sale of his team.
He bought it for next to nothing when they couldn't have won a game if they were the only team on the court. They are now doing well, making money
off of tickets and merchandise and the team is worth substantially more than it was when he acquired it.
Clear violation of the fourth amendment and the first. I don't agree with what he said, but I agree that he has a right to say it, unless we
live in North Korea.
It's a violation of neither. You're confusing constitutional law with contract law. It's not about crime at all and that would be the only way
constitutional law would apply. Neither of those amendments apply to this situation. The closest the 4th plays into it is if the woman who recorded
the conversation Violated any wiretapping laws and then it would only apply to her. The first amendment doesn't play into this at all. It wasn't a
free speech issue, it was a contractual violation spurned by his illfated choice in mistresses. The guy is a heaping mess of one bad choice piled on
top of another.
While Stirling is entirely in his right to be a racist, if he is, or an anachronistic old man caught up in how it was acceptable to behave and speak
about others, or whatever his rationale is, others also have the right to be equally appalled or disgusted with his actions and rhetoric and use their
first amendment rights to say something about it.just as you are afforded the same opportunity to have and excessive your own opinions and rights.
Even if this were a first amendment issue, just because you technically have the right to say just about anything you please, doesn't mean there
won't or even shouldn't be consequences.
You can see the polarization in america like blood on a dog. A weakness. WE are welcoming all of our enemies to attack. The doors are open,
there is a red carpet that says come on in, attack us.
I'm confused, since the topic is hypocritical gays, atheists and other people snuggled under the blanket statement of alternative lifestyles, are
homosexuals and atheists our enemies and on the attack or is everyone just equally utilizing their rights to speak out about what they believe
strongly in with no regard for who agrees or disagrees? Just a thought.