Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   This might come as a shock to you, but Twitter users might not all be experts on how the First Amendment works   (deadspin.com) divider line 108
    More: Followup, Twitter users, First Amendment, Clippers, Twitter, Adam Silver, Donald Sterling  
•       •       •

2311 clicks; posted to Sports » on 29 Apr 2014 at 5:47 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-29 04:15:03 PM  
"I only have a passing familiarity with my rights" ~pretty much everyone
 
2014-04-29 04:24:30 PM  
I kind of wish I could outlaw "look at what random schlubs are saying on the Twitters" articles.
 
2014-04-29 04:31:35 PM  
The First Amendment is pretty clear:

"And lo the angel came upon them and said 'thou shalt amend thy Constitution to ensure the absolute consequencelessyness of all statements, however moronic' and thus was the Constitution amended"

Really can't see why so many people are confused.
 
2014-04-29 04:37:43 PM  

flucto: The First Amendment is pretty clear:

"And lo the angel came upon them and said 'thou shalt amend thy Constitution to ensure the absolute consequencelessyness of all statements, however moronic' and thus was the Constitution amended"

Really can't see why so many people are confused.


where's the part where it only applies if you are a rich white and/or republican.  Martin Bashir seems to have suffered consequences for saying stupid shiat and none of the first amendment heroes came to his air then.
 
2014-04-29 04:38:52 PM  
imgs.xkcd.com

/oblig.
 
2014-04-29 04:51:02 PM  
He isn't going to jail

No 1st amendment violations

He's being ostracized from the community. It is a social issue, not a legal one. Bewilder not the twain.
 
2014-04-29 05:03:02 PM  

ManateeGag: where's the part where it only applies if you are a rich white and/or republican.


Obviously things angels say does not apply to heathen liberal commies and other Democrats.
 
2014-04-29 05:22:49 PM  
Uh, not so fast.  While it is true that the 1st Amdt only protects speech against interference by government agents (state action), it is not clear that the Commissioner of the NBA cannot be a state actor.  Someone who has a symbiotic relationship with the state can be a state actor -- for example, a company that runs a parking garage on a lot owned by the state.  The leagues work closely on revenue-sharing arrangements, etc., with state and local governments.

Sports league commissioners have been held to be state actors in a few older cases.

Ludtke v. Kuhn, 461 F. Supp. 86 (S.D.N.Y. 1978); Hertel v. City of Pontiac, 470 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. Mich. 1979)

For further reading
 
2014-04-29 05:23:04 PM  
It's a business.  Thanks to the fact that most challenges to business rules regarding this sort of thing being upheld due to said First Amendment, I'm pretty sure it's okay.

When you are a public entertainment business, any blemish to your image can and will be dealt with appropriately, in direct correlation to the severity of how poorly it fits with the business's image.  When your core demographic and highest ranking employees are completely and totally appalled by what you say as an employee, no matter how high you are, you're going down.
 
2014-04-29 05:50:16 PM  
"What if MJ had said something similar?"

Hm. So if Michael Jordan had said he didn't want white people at his games. While it's true that the outrage may not have been as bad (maybe?), it's still not a good comparison. White people have not been historically discriminated against in this country. You can't just pull a 180 and say "WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS?" and try to catch someone being a hypocrite. Not a good argument. Do better.
 
2014-04-29 05:56:11 PM  
The amount of people who think 1A of the Constitution is "you're free to say whatever you want in all situations and everyone else can suck it" is staggering.
 
2014-04-29 05:59:33 PM  

Di Atribe: "What if MJ had said something similar?"

Hm. So if Michael Jordan had said he didn't want white people at his games. While it's true that the outrage may not have been as bad (maybe?), it's still not a good comparison. White people have not been historically discriminated against in this country. You can't just pull a 180 and say "WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS?" and try to catch someone being a hypocrite. Not a good argument. Do better.


Michael Jordan had a Hitler mustache in that one Hanes ad though! I'm not sure what it means but I'm pretty sure it means something racist!
 
2014-04-29 06:01:01 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Michael Jordan had a Hitler mustache in that one Hanes ad though! I'm not sure what it means but I'm pretty sure it means something racist!


Likely response, "Communist Manifesto," IF that is your real name!
 
2014-04-29 06:01:09 PM  
First: The NBA owners have their own "constitution" that they have to abide by. If he violated any part of it, they're well within their rights to do what they did. He agreed to it when he bought the team.

Second: When the fark is ESPN gona fire that racist douche Stephen A Smith?
 
IP
2014-04-29 06:07:43 PM  

flucto: The First Amendment is pretty clear:

"And lo the angel came upon them and said 'thou shalt amend thy Constitution to ensure the absolute consequencelessyness of all statements, however moronic' and thus was the Constitution amended"

Really can't see why so many people are confused.


Potato-Americans are perpetually confused.
 
2014-04-29 06:09:12 PM  
Is Dante Stallworth still playing football? Because I don't think he is.

I hope that guy who goes "off to search for the  First Amendment" actually ends up reading it.

And people who don't know the difference between "weather" & "whether" don't really get to make Constitutional Law arguments. Sorry, guy.

And finally, LOL at the "Thought Police." You can have those thoughts all day long, but if you are loud & blatant about it, things probably aren't gonna go your way. Sterling has been awful for decades. Methinks this was just the most public, and therefore likely the last straw.
 
2014-04-29 06:17:13 PM  
I work with PhD's that make this same...argument? People don't pay attention and desperately cling to child-like notions of freedom.
 
2014-04-29 06:22:05 PM  
I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?
 
2014-04-29 06:22:35 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Di Atribe: "What if MJ had said something similar?"

Hm. So if Michael Jordan had said he didn't want white people at his games. While it's true that the outrage may not have been as bad (maybe?), it's still not a good comparison. White people have not been historically discriminated against in this country. You can't just pull a 180 and say "WELL WHAT ABOUT THIS?" and try to catch someone being a hypocrite. Not a good argument. Do better.

Michael Jordan had a Hitler mustache in that one Hanes ad though! I'm not sure what it means but I'm pretty sure it means something racist!


I'll tell you what it means.  In all of those ads, did they ever feature their signature product?  The one that sustained the enterprise through entire businsess cycles; the one they built a billion dollar empire around; the so-called tighty whities?

No, they didn't. Study it out, people.
 
2014-04-29 06:23:15 PM  
I find that incredibly hard to believe. If I can't trust the brain-trust on Twitter, where am I supposed to get my talking-points?
 
2014-04-29 06:23:57 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: I work with PhD's that make this same...argument? People don't pay attention and desperately cling to child-like notions of freedom.


I'm always amazed how we're in the year 2014, and yet I still encounter people who's number one masturbatory fantasy is dressing like Daniel Boone, talking like John Wayne, and then just going around killing a bunch of nondescript "commies".
 
2014-04-29 06:25:18 PM  

mjbok: How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?


When did the NBA take possession of the Clippers? Making him sell his team is not the same thing as confiscating the team.
 
2014-04-29 06:25:29 PM  

mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?


it's a franchise agreement and the contract is secret but probably contains a 'if everyone votes that you're a shiatbag you go' clause.

It's entirely dependent on what's in the secret agreement that Sterling signed.

It's worth noting that Silver knows what's in the agreement.......
 
2014-04-29 06:25:29 PM  
First?  Why stop there?  It's amazing how little people know of any of their rights outside of a characterization they have seen on Law and Order.
 
2014-04-29 06:25:37 PM  

mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?


Because he owns a franchise. Under any franchise agreement the parent can take the franchise away from you.
 
2014-04-29 06:27:01 PM  

Di Atribe: And finally, LOL at the "Thought Police." You can have those thoughts all day long, but if you are loud & blatant about it, things probably aren't gonna go your way. Sterling has been awful for decades. Methinks this was just the most public, and therefore likely the last straw.


The people most concerned about the "thought police" seem to be the people that wouldn't have any evidence to find.

There's a surprising lack of #dogavi in those comments, however.
 
2014-04-29 06:29:44 PM  

mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?


NBA is under no obligation to let his team play in the NBA. I doubt they could force him to sell it, but being kicked out of the NBA would be a death sentence for his team, so he would most likely sell to recoup instead of losing his investment
 
2014-04-29 06:29:50 PM  
Best comment

Wow, Mark Wohlers, still missing the target after all these years.
 
2014-04-29 06:30:19 PM  
It's also nice to know Mark Wohlers is spending his retirement from MLB being an idiot.
 
2014-04-29 06:31:37 PM  

cman: NBA is under no obligation to let his team play in the NBA. I doubt they could force him to sell it, but being kicked out of the NBA would be a death sentence for his team, so he would most likely sell to recoup instead of losing his investment


True.  Of course in the middle of a playoff run this becomes problematic.  However from the brief snippets I've seen in passing on ESPN the dialogue was along the lines of "he will be forced sell the team".
 
2014-04-29 06:32:56 PM  

robsul82: It's also nice to know Mark Wohlers is spending his retirement from MLB being an idiot.


And he is getting hammered for it, kinda like one of his fastballs.
 
2014-04-29 06:33:09 PM  

mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?


What I heard was that the "constitution" of the NBA states the league can force an owner out over a financial default, but makes no mention of any other type of failing. That's why nobody thought the league would do this.

So really it's up in the air in a legal sense. He can fight it, but at this point he'll probably just want to cash out and move on.
 
2014-04-29 06:33:10 PM  

mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?


If you own a McDonalds and all of a sudden you want to sponsor a weekly "Come on down to the local McDonalds for our Jew Hatin special.  Every Thursday night all meals are half price if you are in full Nazi gear.  Bring sure to bring the kids, Dukie the KKKlown will be here making balloon nooses! "

You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

He owns a piece of paper, maybe the stadium, and that is all.  He entered a franchise deal that came with a specific set of rules that he had to abide by to keep the contract.  He violated those rules.  As such he forfeits that contract but he will argue in court that he is due certain financial reward for growing this franchise from whatever he paid to whatever it is worth now regardless of his transgressions.  So, how do you set current fair market value?  Open it for sale and he receives that amount because that is what he is due.

They are calling it "forcing him to sell" when in fact they are just setting the amount he is due when they kick him out.
 
2014-04-29 06:36:47 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.


True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.
 
2014-04-29 06:38:41 PM  

mjbok: but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.


if they have enough votes, and they do, yeah it's theirs
 
2014-04-29 06:39:08 PM  

mjbok: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.


You don't know any of this because you don't know what's in the franchise agreement.
 
2014-04-29 06:43:24 PM  

Tigger: mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?

it's a franchise agreement and the contract is secret but probably contains a 'if everyone votes that you're a shiatbag you go' clause.

It's entirely dependent on what's in the secret agreement that Sterling signed.

It's worth noting that Silver knows what's in the agreement.......


My understanding is that a 75% vote of other owners is required to force a sale.
 
2014-04-29 06:43:28 PM  

mjbok: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.


Ok he "owns" the team but he OWNS the stadium but that is most likely two different companies.  The team company signs a 20 year lease with the property company to play there creating a second income stream for the owner.

So the NBA takes over the franchise and the teams contract might still be valid with the property company allowing them to still play in the stadium.
 
2014-04-29 06:44:22 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: mjbok: I get they can ban him from the league.  I get they can fine him.  I get and understand all of those.  How can they take something that he owns (the team) from him when he is being punished for being a racist asshole (which is not illegal)?

If you own a McDonalds and all of a sudden you want to sponsor a weekly "Come on down to the local McDonalds for our Jew Hatin special.  Every Thursday night all meals are half price if you are in full Nazi gear.  Bring sure to bring the kids, Dukie the KKKlown will be here making balloon nooses! "

You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

He owns a piece of paper, maybe the stadium, and that is all.  He entered a franchise deal that came with a specific set of rules that he had to abide by to keep the contract.  He violated those rules.  As such he forfeits that contract but he will argue in court that he is due certain financial reward for growing this franchise from whatever he paid to whatever it is worth now regardless of his transgressions.  So, how do you set current fair market value?  Open it for sale and he receives that amount because that is what he is due.

They are calling it "forcing him to sell" when in fact they are just setting the amount he is due when they kick him out.


Mostly this, (except for he doesn't own the Staples Center).

He owns a franchise in a league that is regulated by the other franchise owners, and as another poster pointed out, the NBA doesn't have to schedule his team to play any other NBA teams.  If 3/4ths of the owners want him out for ANY reason (doesn't matter what), he's gone.  This is the NBA's own entity, and they're entitled to run it how they wish, and the Clippers are only 1/30th of it.

This has nothing to do with 1st amendment.  This has everything to do with a business (the NBA) conducting business however they want to for the betterment of the business, and with major sponsors dropping like flies (Kia, State Farm, etc), it would have been poor business to just slap him on the wrist.  The McDonalds franchise example is pretty spot on.
 
2014-04-29 06:44:47 PM  
I kind of wish I could outlaw "look at what random schlubs are saying on the Twitters" articles.

Can we just outlaw Deadspin/Gawker completely?
 
2014-04-29 06:48:00 PM  

Tigger: mjbok: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.

You don't know any of this because you don't know what's in the franchise agreement.


For the nba one correct. For the McDonald's one all they can do is revoke the franchise, not shutter the business altogether.
 
2014-04-29 06:49:32 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: mjbok: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.

Ok he "owns" the team but he OWNS the stadium but that is most likely two different companies.  The team company signs a 20 year lease with the property company to play there creating a second income stream for the owner.

So the NBA takes over the franchise and the teams contract might still be valid with the property company allowing them to still play in the stadium.


He owns Staples Center? I thought AEG owned Staples Center.
 
2014-04-29 06:50:32 PM  
For the record I'm not saying this is a first amendment thing. I just think it is questionable that the nba can take over a franchise. I don't doubt that they will, nor that the franchise arrangement allows it, I just question if it is legal.
 
2014-04-29 06:50:55 PM  

ongbok: robsul82: It's also nice to know Mark Wohlers is spending his retirement from MLB being an idiot.

And he is getting hammered for it, kinda like one of his fastballs.


Wrings a couple extra drops of happiness from those memories of watching him give up that 3-run HR to Leyritz back in the '96 World Series, lol.
 
2014-04-29 06:51:41 PM  

mjbok: Tigger: mjbok: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.

You don't know any of this because you don't know what's in the franchise agreement.

For the nba one correct. For the McDonald's one all they can do is revoke the franchise, not shutter the business altogether.


sp3.yimg.com
 
2014-04-29 06:53:21 PM  

mjbok: For the record I'm not saying this is a first amendment thing. I just think it is questionable that the nba can take over a franchise. I don't doubt that they will, nor that the franchise arrangement allows it, I just question if it is legal.


MLB did it with the Expos
MLS did it with Chivas USA
NHL did it with Phoenix (if I'm not mistaken)

I see no reason why the NBA would be different.
 
2014-04-29 06:53:33 PM  

Shame Us: mjbok: Tigger: mjbok: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: You can be pretty sure that McDonalds is gonna make sure those golden arches are down stat.

True, but they can't take possession of the building, nor non-McDonald's branded supplies.  On ESPN, one of the likely options (according to them so take it was a pile of salt) is that the NBA will assume ownership until a sale can be arranged.  That isn't taking away his franchise rights, that is taking away his property.  Granted he would get the proceeds from the sale, but it doesn't change the fact that the NBA is potentially taking something that isn't theirs.

You don't know any of this because you don't know what's in the franchise agreement.

For the nba one correct. For the McDonald's one all they can do is revoke the franchise, not shutter the business altogether.


I'd like a Big Mic.
 
2014-04-29 06:58:30 PM  

mjbok: For the record I'm not saying this is a first amendment thing. I just think it is questionable that the nba can take over a franchise. I don't doubt that they will, nor that the franchise arrangement allows it, I just question if it is legal.


legality is defined in the franchise agreement.  Don't try to apply your own views on property rights to this.  They slapped a 100 page contract in front of him that was the path to millions and millions and buried in that was a simple statement

fark up and we will take it away

He signed it.
 
2014-04-29 07:03:29 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: mjbok: For the record I'm not saying this is a first amendment thing. I just think it is questionable that the nba can take over a franchise. I don't doubt that they will, nor that the franchise arrangement allows it, I just question if it is legal.

legality is defined in the franchise agreement.  Don't try to apply your own views on property rights to this.  They slapped a 100 page contract in front of him that was the path to millions and millions and buried in that was a simple statement

fark up REPEATEDLY and we will take it away

He signed it.


This isn't Sterling's first public go-round with racism accusations and lawsuits stemming from such.

David Stern should have taken care of this a long time ago.
 
2014-04-29 07:07:52 PM  
Stop Jew hating.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report