A Sterling Ethics Train Wreck Update, Ethics Heroes Opposing The Mob, and The Comment of the Day

thoughtpoliceEthics Alarms commenter Chris Marschner again scores a Comment of the Day regarding the subtext of my recent post about Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis, whose stunning abuse of government power to punish a citizen’s free speech was ignored while destroying NBA team owner Donald Sterling, because he privately articulated offensive views to a vengeful girlfriend, became a media obsession and a national rallying point.

Before I get to Chris’s excellent comment, however, I should bring us up to date on the Donald Sterling Ethics Train Wreck, which has proceeded as I feared it would:

  • NBA Commissioner Adam Silver banned Sterling for life, and fined him a whopping $2.5 million. For his words. To his girlfriend. That were leaked to the press. Because she wanted to get even with her sugar daddy’s wife, who is suing her. It wasn’t because he is a racist, because everyone paying attention already knew he was a racist, or at least a bigot. Silver didn’t care about due process, or fairness, or any of those details…he just knew he had a terrible PR problem, that nobody of substance would defend someone as loathsome as Sterling, and that he just had to get ahead of the mob. He is being praised for his leadership, which shows how badly the concept of leadership has decayed in 2014’s America.
  • Rep. Bobby Rush, who also was an early leader of the effort to declare George Zimmerman a racist murderer in the absence of evidence, facts or a trial, made a speech on the House floor congratulating Silver. Yes, he can say whatever he wants to, but government officials publicly approving the punishment of citizens for mere speech is using their position and office to intimidate speakers and chill free expression.  It is irresponsible, and wrong. Rush, ironically, may have actually done something unethical and not merely talked about it. He is the object of a House ethics probe, and will get lots of the due process denied to Sterling.
  • I listened on MLB radio to two sports pundits skewering Sterling, who is 80, by going on about how typical he is of “old people.” Set in his ways, addicted to routine, not receptive to new ideas, grumpy, unwilling to adapt….you know, old. They’re all like that,, those old codgers. You can read similar opinions in the comments on any website covering the story. Some bigotry will get you fined if it is surreptitiously leaked without your consent, and other bigotry is perfectly all right when shamelessly proclaimed over national media, because, I guess, enough people agree with it, so it’s OK.
  • ESPN’s Calvin Cowherd, losing his mind, actually argued that all of Sterling’s team’s contracts should be cancelled, because, you see, legal contracts are void if you discover that one of the parties isn’t a nice person. My dog understands basic legal principles better than Cowherd. Anyone listening to him risks becoming too dumb to breath.
  • New York Knicks executive Larry Johnson proposed a solution: get rid of the whites. In a tweet, the former star player wrote: “Black people your Focusing on the wrong thing. We should be focusing on having our own, Own team own League! To For Self!!” Oddly, proposing that the best approach is to segregate the league and only allow blacks to play and own teams isn’t vile, disgusting, horrible, hate speech or any of the things Sterling’s private statements have been called. Johnson still has his job. No fines have been announced. Besides, he’s just engaging in free speech. And he doesn’t have to worry about white players boycotting his team, because there aren’t enough to matter…
  • For her part, V. Stiviano  claims she wasn’t the one that leaked the recordings, though she made them. If so, she was very, very irresponsible with sensitive information entrusted to her.  She also says she will be President some day. Yes, she is a wacko. And her boyfriend’s misfortune is her gain.
  • Setting a new record (and breaking her own) for mealy-mouthed punditry, this story inspired Kathleen Parker to deliver her most useless column yet, and I am tempted to apologize to Eliot Spitzer for criticizing him for treating her like a potted plant on their doomed CNN show. She IS a potted plant. Let’s see if I can summarize: “Boy, it’s a shame that we can’t say controversial things in private any more without being ripped to shreds by cyber-mobs and culture police, but that’s the way it is, and besides, Gandhi once said something about how thoughts become actions, so maybe thought-crime isn’t such a bad idea, who knows.”

I wrote in one of the comments to the Ardis post that I would be noting the commentators with the guts to confront the torches and pitchforks and point out how ominous this incident is for the ideals of privacy, free speech, and fairness. Two have arrived, at least.

Conservative Ben Shapiro:

“The big problem is that the market is turning on Sterling not over action, but over words. Sterling’s a pig, and that’s been no secret for decades. But what triggered America’s response? Sterling’s thoughts. American society now considers expression of thought to be significantly more important than action. Sterling got away with actual discrimination for years. But now he is caught on tape telling his gold-digging girlfriend he doesn’t like blacks, and that’s when the firestorm erupts? This is the thought police at work. Feelings matter more than action. Words matter more than harming others. That sets a radically dangerous precedent for freedom of thought and speech, particularly for those whose thought and speech we hate. Freedom of speech and thought matters especially when it is speech and thought with which we disagree. The moment the majority decides to destroy people for engaging in thought it dislikes, thoughtcrime becomes a reality.”

First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza:

“We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed — we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?…Think about what his public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you now not only need to fear saying them in public, but you need to fear saying them at all — even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear. Isn’t it bad enough that the National Security Agency can spy on all of us? How can we complain when we condone giving our closest friends the ability to do worse — perhaps just to try and destroy us….The Sterling story is not that we found a bigot and dragged him to the gallows in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. The Sterling story is about how there is no more privacy. We live in a world where you can share your intimate photos with your lover, and they will wind up on a “revenge porn” website….Do we now live in a world where we can trust nobody? Where there is no privacy? In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano’s behavior represents the horrifying future. Shouldn’t we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man’s racist blathering?”

UPDATE: On Slate, Mike Pesca joins the honor roll with this commentary.

There’s me, of course. And last but not least, there is Chris Marschner. Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, Jim Ardis, Mayor of Peoria, Uses The Police To Crush A Social Media Critic, But Never Mind, It’s Not Important Because He’s Not Racist:

Jack, yesterday you wrote a must read post regarding the RNC running an ad that condemned a candidate who is a defense attorney for defending people charged with reprehensible crimes. Our Constitution guarantees everyone a defense irrespective of how despicable they are and defense attorneys have a job to do. I would like to invoke that privilege here for a moment.

It is bad enough that we are fast becoming a nation of vigilantes bent on mob justice. Find something that offends us and we use our political power to destroy that person. We do not ask what the person meant nor do we care; our only concern is for fomenting more outrage or being sanctimonious at being aggrieved. When we allow officials, using the color of law, to silence opinions of the opposition we have done to ourselves that which no fascist or Islamic terrorist bent on enforcing Sharia law upon the infidels has been able to do – so far.

There are many that justify the destruction of an individual based on the idea that speech is not truly free as some vile speech will come with severe consequences. They often point out that yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is unlawful as it can cause harm. But what if someone else has a tape recording of me yelling fire elsewhere but then plays it at full volume in a crowded theater. Am I guilty of yelling fire? Yes. Did I do it in a crowded theater? No. Had a third party not played my utterance in that venue would it have caused harm? No. Should I be guilty of a crime?

The same is true for Sterling. Did Sterling make the vile comments? Seems so. Did he do it publicly? No. The proximate cause for the harm from the comments he made that may be felt by the NBA came not from him but an ex-lawyer turned showman. He played the tape for the world to hear. He did so for financial gain. He brought the harm to the NBA and the other aggrieved parties. So too did the recorder of the conversation. Why the hell do we hold these people up as heroes to the cause?

The reason we have free speech is to communicate an idea for the purpose of changing minds. The receiver of the communication is free to reject the idea outright. The receiver can also choose whether or not the idea is so vile that he/she wants to declare a complete economic embargo against the utterer of the contemptible idea. However, if we feel that we are compelled to go along with one side because failure to do so will tar us with the original sin and similar consequences, then we are not truly free to choose whether we accept or reject the idea.

With all that that has emerged about Mr. Sterling’s beliefs, I find the outrage by the league, the NAACP, the players and the sports writers and everyone else who has profited handsomely from their association with Sterling absolutely hypocritical. Why did they not boycott him when he quietly settled several discrimination cases? In my opinion, it was felt what the public does not know will not hurt them. Now, with all this out in the open they can no longer hide from the fact that they each gave him a pass in exchange for large sums of money. As of yesterday, the NAACP still states that is in negotiations with him for greater amounts of funding for African American youth activities. Give me a break about the harm you all suffered. Your outrage is as transparent as glass. You use these situations to gain financially. If you are truly outraged you would walk away from his money.

The tape recording is merely a technological means to record the thoughts of others. If the communication is not for public consumption, the public has no right to know what I or anyone else is thinking or saying. There is a reason that bi-lateral consent is required in many states prior to recording private statements. What if technology emerges that allows us to capture a person’s thoughts but does not require the actual utterance of the thought? If that happens there will be no escape from the intellectual bondage imposed upon us by the masses.

If we are not permitted to formulate and communicate our thoughts privately out of fear of economic destruction and personal harm then the select few will determine what say and think. As a result, we will truly be disenfranchised as citizens.

______________________

Sources: CNN, Washington Times, Creators, Washington Post

Graphic: Overtone

18 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Character, Citizenship, Comment of the Day, Ethics Heroes, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Race, Rights, Romance and Relationships, Sports, U.S. Society

18 responses to “A Sterling Ethics Train Wreck Update, Ethics Heroes Opposing The Mob, and The Comment of the Day

    • Because Al doesn’t have a racist bone in his body…

      • Inquiring Mind

        Between the Crown Heights riots and Freddie’s Fashion Mart… there are bodies Sharpton’s inciting caused…

      • zoebrain

        Because Al doesn’t have a racist bone in his body…

        DRINK WARNING PLEASE NEXT TIME.

        Jack, if you ever make it down to Canberra, you owe me a cup of Earl Grey.

        Of course, I owe you far more than that for your blog…

        Seriously though, that line did cause an involuntary snort of derision. Your delivery was perfect.

  1. On bullet point #1. Even those who claim to support Freedom of Conscience and it’s child, Freedom of Speech, always caveat their defenses of those concepts by saying “Well, Sterling just needs to sell and be done. He just needs to go ahead and accept his punishment.”

    Uh, no, he doesn’t. In the realm of the NBA, his unwillingly-public comments DO NO HARM TO ANYONE.

    His ownership of the Clippers still provides a service people are willing to pay to see… entertainment via sports. His ownership of the Clippers still provides employment people are willing to contract with. His ownership of the Clippers HARMS NO ONE.

    The NBA sanctions are all thought control. I’ve read where everyone expects the vote by the “Board of Governors” (the owners of the NBA teams) to go unanimously against him. I guarantee there are plenty of voters than in their hearts know they wouldn’t vote against him, except they too fear the mob.

    I do not know how our nation can recover it’s rationalism and sanity. I’m afraid we are too far gone down the road of emotionalism and victimism.

    • Well, the comments do hurt the league now, with sponsors boycotting, players saying they won’t play, the NBA’s willingness to countenance the creep as a business partner, and the bad publicity…all during the play-offs. The NBA has always been vulnerable, a weird mix of mostly black millionaires with multiple unmarried moms getting child support( or not), on teams owned by white billionaires, many of dubious character. This could, in fact, unsettle the league, badly. Slate is right–if Sterling challenges in court, he can try to prove that there are more racists than just him among the owners, and there may be. I wouldn’t cry if the NBA went down…it’s corrupt, and corrupting. And its hypocrisy is beyond belief. Wait until the conspiracy theories get aired, like Magic being able to buy the Clippers at a fire sale after the recording of the owner objecting to his honey hanging out with HIM somehow gets into the media. Such a coincidence!

      • The Comments do not hurt the league.

        The sponsors boycotting because they won’t tolerate private thoughts, the players boycotting because they won’t tolerate private thoughts, etc will hurt the league. This is mob mentality to destroy someone for having unpopular thoughts, Jack.

        Seeing where our Community is heading Jack, I’m fast becoming an absolutist on this topic.

        • This is a causation argument. The comments didn’t have to hurt the League. But if you had posed the scenario as a hypothetical, I would have predicted this would happen. The revelation of the comments hurt the league.

  2. blazophoto

    Even though this whole situation and the immediate crucification of Sterling (in order to appease the mob) stinks, I can’t help but get a slight bit of satisfaction that Sterling was cannibalized by his own.
    He was a huge Democratic and Obama supporter/contributor.
    They will throw anybody under the bus to further their agenda!!

  3. blazophoto

    Regarding:
    New York Knicks executive Larry Johnson proposed a solution: get rid of the whites. In a tweet, the former star player wrote: “Black people your Focusing on the wrong thing. We should be focusing on having our own, Own team own League! To For Self!!

    I’d really like to see it…if it can even be created, how long would it last?

    Go start your own league…please.

    It would fold like origami before it even got past the idea of it.
    Guaranteed.

    And wouldn’t the proposal, to begin with–being “all black” violate Civil Rights laws in every phase??

    Oh, that’s right, it wouldn’t matter b/c it only matters when it’s a “white thing.”

    Silly me.

    • Dwayne N. Zechman

      No, no, it would be totally cool because . . . like . . . even though it would be separate, it would still be equal.

      –Dwayne

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.