It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
In 2011, Redox made what I believe is the largest exposé in the Danish press history by exposing the ORG network, a right-wing extremist organisation that had existed in secret for twenty years. The result was that Datatilsynet ("Data Inspectorate") closed Redox' website on the grounds that Redox had published "information about political beliefs."

Likewise, it is official polity for the danish army to accepts neo-nazis (and thus, give them free weapon training) on the ground that the army won't "discriminate on the basis of political opinion".

I'm a bit tired of the way the majorities own extremists are being presented like they were some poor minority that needs protection.
@ OldFatGuy...You expressed my thoughts perfectly. I wish I had the capability to have said it as well as you did.
What monkeydelarge and others seem to overlook is that this was not an isolated incident, but just the tip of the iceberg and the last offense in a long line of bad behaviour. And it was the first time something got out in the open which was directly intertwined with the NBA and their business, unlike the housing discrimination or the prostitution case. The league and commissioner Stern (and his deputy Silver btw.) gave him way too much benefit of the doubt in the past, and maybe it was solely based on the players and public outcry that Silver finally acted.

I get that it is a slippery slope and that some (including Mavs owner Mark Cuban) fear that the league may set a dangerous precedent with this ruling. I myself do not like the fact that all of this was based on a secretly recorded conversation and clearly brought to the light of day with a personal agenda behind it on behalf of the mistress. But what alternative do you have as the governing body? Stay passive on the grounds of "freedom of speech" and refuse to act? Come on now. The league has a constitution and is full of lawyers, so i presume they checked and double checked and triple checked the legality of their sanctions, and with the support of the owners, the players and the majority of the public, they decided to punish Sterling to the full extent. And rightfully so.

The only real issue i can see with this is the announcement that the commish wants to pressure him to sell the team, and with the legal avalanche this may trigger. But if you are 1/30 of a business, and you are threatening said business (be it with words and/or actions), you subject yourself to being pressured by your partners.

Finally, please do not portray this man as the victim who just had a slip of the tongue and is otherwise a model citizen who would never harm anybody and who would never use the same methods that are used against him right now. And his life ruined because of this?! Lol. And to cite his age (age discrimination anyone? :P )? A man that is actively cheating on his wife while presiding over his 1.9 billion business empire. Really?
avatar
monkeydelarge: What if in the future, society finds it despicable to be against racism? Well if that society believes in being fair...then you wont have anything to worry about but if that society thinks with it's emotions only...if that society doesn't respect privacy...then things wont be good.
How can such a society believe in being fair, if it is a racist society?! And you think the only thing you have to worry about is your privacy, and if it is respected everything else is A-OK?! You, Sir/Madam, and your way of thinking scare me.
avatar
monkeydelarge: What if in the future, society finds it despicable to be against racism? Well if that society believes in being fair...then you wont have anything to worry about but if that society thinks with it's emotions only...if that society doesn't respect privacy...then things wont be good.
avatar
RabiatorG0G: How can such a society believe in being fair, if it is a racist society?! And you think the only thing you have to worry about is your privacy, and if it is respected everything else is A-OK?! You, Sir/Madam, and your way of thinking scare me.
Of course in a racist society not everything would be okay but if that society respected the privacy of everyone and believed in justice for everyone... Then it wouldn't be as bad as something like Nazi Germany, for example... In a society that holds privacy and justice high, there would at least be some barriers to protect those who are hated in a racist society. For example, a racist judge wouldn't send someone of a different race to prison for 20 years for stealing bread...because as much as he hates the person of a different race, he believes in justice... Justice is not revenge like many people think. OR there to satisfy people's lust for blood.
avatar
OldFatGuy: It's so unfortunate seeing so many not understanding the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a guarantee that citizens are free to not be held to sanctions from their government for things they say or write or print. In the US, this is enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution, which begins "Congress shall pass no law." Meaning THE STATE.

THE STATE took ZERO ACTION in this instance. Neither the federal, state, city, county, or any other STATE ENTITY took any action against this asshole for anything he said. His freedom of speech remains 100% in tact, he suffered ZERO SANCTIONS from any government entity.

Freedom of speech DOES NOT, and NEVER HAS, meant one remains 100% free from responsibility for the things they say or write. If you were paying an employee, and he showed up for work everyday calling you AND YOUR FAMILY stupid, sub-human beings not worthy of the air you're allowed to breathe, you are free to fire him. And good for you. I'd fire his ass too. That has NOTHING TO DO with freedom of speech. No government sanctions (such as prison or government torture) occurred.

If one is the privacy of their own home and works for you and posts those same words about your family on Facebook, and you read them, again, YOU ARE FREE to fire him. And again, GOOD FOR YOU.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government sanctions for speech, it does NOT, and NEVER HAS, meant 100% freedom from responsibility for anything you say or write.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Do you really want a world where your coworker, sitting next to you 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, can sit there and constantly call you names, berate you for nothing but the color of your skin or the style of your hair or your sex, perhaps even make sexually suggestive speech at you, all free from responsibility??? Really???

Oh, and here's a news flash for you. Our "freedom of speech" is not deemed to be 100%. Hundreds of years of case law has resulted in there being some forms of speech regarded as worthy of regulation/retribution from government. Yelling "fire in a crowded theater" is, while perhaps the most famous example, but one of many.

Go over to your friends house tonight and tell them precisely how you're planning to assassinate the President of the United States, and then watch what happens if that friend happened to tape that "private conversation" and releases it. Maybe it will be just the lesson some need on the intricacies of "freedom of speech." It is not, nor should be, 100% universal. I'm rather fond of commercial speech being regulated and monitored. I don't think a company should have the right to advertise product A makes your penis larger for only $49.99 a month and then said product doesn't work. (For those unfamiliar, that's a real life example of a company that had it's assets seized and distributed to former customers because their "speech" wasn't true. And good for the government for doing jus that.)
Yes if society didn't allow consequences for people's words, then society would become a troll's paradise. Yes, letting someone say something like "FIRE!!!" in a movie theater without any punishment afterwards would be foolish for society. But those consequences(the punishment), should be reasonable. We shouldn't cut out his tongue so he can never cause such panic again. or give him the death penalty. Our society shouldn't be a society where people are too afraid to say what they want because they don't want to die or get tortured or have overemotional people ruin their lives. Such a society reminds me of the dark ages and should not exist today or in the future. Such a society goes against the nature of the constitution, our founding fathers, our ancestors(I'm assuming some of your ancestors were American) and the USA.
Post edited May 01, 2014 by monkeydelarge
avatar
StingingVelvet: I dislike that pretty much no one is talking about this woman illegally taping him, surely for nefarious purposes.

That said he's a disgusting human being and I am glad he is being punished.
Taken in full context of prior events I wouldn't characterize taping him as nefarious. The Sterlings are known as being very litigious and his wife had filed a lawsuit trying to take back almost 2 million in gifts. Since this has been done in the past with previous mistresses after the relationship dissolved I find it hard not to view what she did as protection from a litigious Goliath hellbent on bringing her down financially. It's important to remember how those statements must of felt directly spoken to someone of the ethnicity he was trashing.

Given the same circumstances for yourself what would you have done?
Post edited May 01, 2014 by HampsterStyle
avatar
HampsterStyle: Taken in full context of prior events I wouldn't characterize taping him as nefarious. The Sterlings are known as being very litigious and his wife had filed a lawsuit trying to take back almost 2 million in gifts. Since this has been done in the past with previous mistresses after the relationship dissolved I find it hard not to view what she did as protection from a litigious Goliath hellbent on bringing her down financially. It's important to remember how those statements must of felt directly spoken to someone of the ethnicity he was trashing.

Given the same circumstances for yourself what would you have done?
I don't really disagree, just saying she broke the law and the whole situation is kind of icky. Still, he deserves what he gets.
avatar
RabiatorG0G: How can such a society believe in being fair, if it is a racist society?! And you think the only thing you have to worry about is your privacy, and if it is respected everything else is A-OK?! You, Sir/Madam, and your way of thinking scare me.
avatar
monkeydelarge: Of course in a racist society not everything would be okay but if that society respected the privacy of everyone and believed in justice for everyone... Then it wouldn't be as bad as something like Nazi Germany, for example... In a society that holds privacy and justice high, there would at least be some barriers to protect those who are hated in a racist society. For example, a racist judge wouldn't send someone of a different race to prison for 20 years for stealing bread...because as much as he hates the person of a different race, he believes in justice... Justice is not revenge like many people think. OR there to satisfy people's lust for blood.
Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

If the judge is racist, and indeed the whole society is, that judge can very easily sentence someone of a race they consider lesser to a higher penalty and still consider it 'just', in such a case a racist society would agree with him. It may not be what you might consider 'justice', but it would be to them.
avatar
OldFatGuy: It's so unfortunate seeing so many not understanding the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a guarantee that citizens are free to not be held to sanctions from their government for things they say or write or print. In the US, this is enshrined in the first amendment to our constitution, which begins "Congress shall pass no law." Meaning THE STATE.

THE STATE took ZERO ACTION in this instance. Neither the federal, state, city, county, or any other STATE ENTITY took any action against this asshole for anything he said. His freedom of speech remains 100% in tact, he suffered ZERO SANCTIONS from any government entity.

Freedom of speech DOES NOT, and NEVER HAS, meant one remains 100% free from responsibility for the things they say or write. If you were paying an employee, and he showed up for work everyday calling you AND YOUR FAMILY stupid, sub-human beings not worthy of the air you're allowed to breathe, you are free to fire him. And good for you. I'd fire his ass too. That has NOTHING TO DO with freedom of speech. No government sanctions (such as prison or government torture) occurred.

If one is the privacy of their own home and works for you and posts those same words about your family on Facebook, and you read them, again, YOU ARE FREE to fire him. And again, GOOD FOR YOU.

Freedom of speech means freedom from government sanctions for speech, it does NOT, and NEVER HAS, meant 100% freedom from responsibility for anything you say or write.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand? Do you really want a world where your coworker, sitting next to you 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, can sit there and constantly call you names, berate you for nothing but the color of your skin or the style of your hair or your sex, perhaps even make sexually suggestive speech at you, all free from responsibility??? Really???

Oh, and here's a news flash for you. Our "freedom of speech" is not deemed to be 100%. Hundreds of years of case law has resulted in there being some forms of speech regarded as worthy of regulation/retribution from government. Yelling "fire in a crowded theater" is, while perhaps the most famous example, but one of many.

Go over to your friends house tonight and tell them precisely how you're planning to assassinate the President of the United States, and then watch what happens if that friend happened to tape that "private conversation" and releases it. Maybe it will be just the lesson some need on the intricacies of "freedom of speech." It is not, nor should be, 100% universal. I'm rather fond of commercial speech being regulated and monitored. I don't think a company should have the right to advertise product A makes your penis larger for only $49.99 a month and then said product doesn't work. (For those unfamiliar, that's a real life example of a company that had it's assets seized and distributed to former customers because their "speech" wasn't true. And good for the government for doing jus that.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4rBDUJTnNU
Post edited May 02, 2014 by scampywiak