I stand by my long held position that freedom of speech is NOT the freedom to speak only what you agree with. I object in principle to the argument that "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" as the whole idea is to allow people to freely speak their minds even when their sentiments are unpopular. Private citizens having more power to regulate the speech of other private citizens than the government by holding a job over their head, or by controlling the platforms for expression than elected officials in the government is something I feel is wrong. What's more as the line between government and private becomes increasingly blurry with the way PACs and politicians work, it becomes increasingly easy for the government to effectively exercise control that it was never intended to be able to. Sure the government might not be able to silence someone by direct action, but it can have a company with political ties do it for them. This is why there has been so much concern from both parties over the years about the media effectively turning into a political mouthpiece.... beyond the simple point that when you get into the ability of an employer to ruin someone's life, or a private organization to force the sale of something like an NBA team, or simply the ability of someone in control of an informational platform to decide what is said on it, your rapidly approaching the concept of nobility and/or the inherent rights of merchant lords and princes, something the US is conceptually opposed to. The basic idea that simply through the rights of ownership someone has the right to pretty much abuse the people of lower classes with imputiny. This was not considered when the constitution was written because the founding fathers never conceived of things like tiny recording devices, or the kind of mass media we have today.
Right now while things are leaning one way politically it's easy to say "hey, let's establish all these precedents to terrorize the other side of the social and political spectrum and abolish even their simple ability to express themselves or vent!". That's wonderful, but incredibly short sighted as the pendulum always swings back the other way to some extent, especially when your antagonistic about things and force people underground or to operate outside the system. What's more when the pendulum does swing back, you then face all of those rules, standards, and regulations thrown right back at you. At some point if the wind changes, the people making these requirements might very well find themselves being oppressed and unable to say again speak against racism if the other side manages to regain power.
In a very real sense, it shouldn't matter what side of the political and social spectrum your on, everyone being able to speak freely, even saying things you hate, is very important. Every safeguard and balancing factor you remove,like the old "equal time" standards in journalism and reporting, or action to limit the ability to filibuster so things can be forced through without the required political support, is something that can be thrown back at you.
Speaking for myself I tend to think karma balances, not a popular sentiment for sure, but I tend to believe guys like Sterling shouldn't have any action taken against them by groups like the NBA. Rather I think their own words should simply be allowed to stand, and the same effect will be achieved when nobody is willing to play for him no matter how much money he offers to pay. The right way for this to end is not with an NBA crackdown, but with a lot of his players putting their money where their mouths are and walking away despite the millions he pays them and contract violation fines. That will make an appropriate statement, and be far more powerful and meaningful than having one injustice answered with another one.
Likewise it doesn't matter if he's a racist or not, bugging him in his own home is wrong. I doubt anyone on these forums hasn't shot their mouths off about something that wouldn't go over well in the general public behind closed doors. Maybe it wasn't racial, but it was probably something. Recording you, and then using it to ruin your life (no matter what your particular little piece of dirt might be, it's not relevant) is highly illegal. A lot more effort should be being put into finding and punishing who made that recording.
Sometimes I'll agree that the ends justify the means, but really in this case the ends were simply to prove a guy we all kind of knew was a jerk, was indeed a jerk, and to cost him a ton of money. The only way this could have been slimier is if the guy making the recording had tried to use it to blackmail him first.
I mean go ahead, cheer because you hate what the guy said, but one day that shoe might be on the other foot. Someone airs your dirty laundry and costs you a job or something and you probably won't be singing their praises for it. This is a precedent society should not be in support of.
Of course then again having been in surveillance, I actually have a bit more respect for this kind of thing than most people do. When you start looking behind the curtain everyone is dirty, and I mean everyone. There probably isn't a person you couldn't screw with enough time, some recording equipment, and the desire. My job had a very limited scope (most information was irrelevant, I was merely looking for specific things that affected my employer directly) but it deeply influenced how I think. Sterling is a bloody lightweight when it comes to the "freak factor" even if you just want to limit it to racism, people just care because he had deep pockets.
