Should racism be disallowed in private?

With all the talk about the LA Clippers and private tape recordings of disparaging comments toward "minorities", the reaction was interesting to say the least, especially for a country that selectively believes "what people do in the privacy of their own home..."

Should corporate by-laws include clauses that disallow demonstrations of perceived racism in your own home? Is this the thought police or the justified intolerance of intolerance?

I think most people think that others ought to be able to believe what they want, but it's interesting to me that some beliefs are not only not tolerated, they are so abhorrent to most people that a public skewering is practically your only option.

I don't agree with what he said but he made those statements in private and should not made public. It's obvious the sugar baby was digging and set him up.

The biggest problem I see is the source of the disparaging remarks to the customer segment was a private conversation. People have known the Clippers owner was racist for years and only when the tapes were sold to TMZ did the shit hit the fan. Why? Because it confirms what people knew all along? It embarrassed the NBA? It embarrassed the NAACP for giving him awards (after receiving hefty donations?)

If he gave a speech to the general public or to a reporter and said rude things about a group of people then I could see it. That wasn't the case. It appears as though "being a bigot" is what he's being charged with. I guess everyone needs to assume they're being recorded at all times. You never know who may be recording for future use. An opinion today may be damning evidence of malfeasance tomorrow.

I agree with you! Question to ask? If someone sets up a high powered microphone outside your house (on a public street) and records what you say inside your home is what you say considered to be 'public'??
To a certain extent we're ALL hypocrites and have the right to think and speak as we like in the privacy of our own homes. I don't defend what Mr. Sterling said but as long as he didn't behave in a prejudicial manner to anyone in public his privacy and private thoughts should be respected. We're fastly becoming a society where people are tried in a court of public media opinion vs. a court of law. This public lynch mob mentality is not good for our democracy.

I don't agree with what he said but he made those statements in private and should not made public. It's obvious the sugar baby was digging and set him up. Originally Posted by biglatinmale

I agree with you! Question to ask? If someone sets up a high powered microphone outside your house (on a public street) and records what you say inside your home is what you say considered to be 'public'??
To a certain extent we're ALL hypocrites and have the right to think and speak as we like in the privacy of our own homes. I don't defend what Mr. Sterling said but as long as he didn't behave in a prejudicial manner to anyone in public his privacy and private thoughts should be respected. We're fastly becoming a society where people are tried in a court of public media opinion vs. a court of law. This public lynch mob mentality is not good for our democracy. Originally Posted by planojim

Once something goes public, no matter how it's done, it's public. There really is no logical refute to that. Donald Sterling isn't facing jail time or a fine, so he's not being legally threatened by any government agency because he's within his rights to have his opinion. PRIVATE institutions on the other hand can choose not to have associated with them no matter how the Information comes out. Ted Haggard was a pastor of a mega-church until a male prostitute revealed Haggard was a customer and meth user by revealing private communications. Haggard was then kicked out of the church he founded. If the private organization you're associated with feels that your behavior reflects bad on them, they have a right to not have anything to do with.

I think people are touchy about this because of their own prejudices and bigotry. Donald Sterling's situation is no different than some celebrity losing an endorsement deal because a private recording of them having similar views as Donald Sterling, doing illegal substances or god forbid a video of that celebrity having sex with an escort goes public. You say, it's not fair. It's 2014, adults should realize by now the world isn't fair.

Agree with comments above. It seems like some people are trying to muddy the waters by saying this is a privacy issue, free speech issue or property issue.

Ultimately it's a business issue. Sterling caused massive damage to his franchise (sponsors pulling out, players threatening boycotts) and to the league as a whole. He had to be held accountable for those actions for the good of the league.

I think people are touchy about this because of their own prejudices and bigotry. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

I disagree. I think if anyone is "touchy" about this it's because they want to feel like they can say what they want in private. It's not about the content of what he said, it's about where he said it. I agree that private institutions have the right to have whatever moral clauses they want - and Sterling knew the constitutional by-laws of the NBA. But I think moral clauses in general are worth discussing because of cases like this. And I do think public opinion had something to do with Sterling's case because as I said before, his racism was common knowledge. The NBA never acted until the public heard the tape and were outraged. The NBA acted in their own best interests and I don't blame them for that. I'm more surprised that the public can't see the long term effects of something like this.

Morals and what is outrageous can change on a dime.

I would be shocked if the owners force him out. They don't want to open this door. Back door deal will happen where he decides to sell without a vote.

This just proves that if you have anything even slightly controversial to say, even in your own home, collect everybody's gadgets and turn off the baby monitor, home intrusion alarm and any other recording, transmitting, or receiving device, keep your voice low and mumble. And don't trust the black folks 'cause you try and buy them off, get a plaque, wtf, they turn on you. And wimmin. Don't trust them, either, especially if you're old and white and your dick aint what it was and you constantly expose that woman to young fit professional athletes where she'd much rather hang...and anybody else who doesn't think and look and dress and believe just like you do because you can't trust them, either. And God forbid you should have an opinion about fucking anything because someone you least suspect has a phone cam on your sorry drunk ass groping the old lady at the bus stop/bar mitzvah/quinceanera/wedding/republican convention/voting booth or spanking it in front of Lindsey Lee's apartment.

Just don't do dumb shit, don't do anything you wouldn't do in a well lit pubic place if you have anything to lose because it might just be politically, socially, morally or YouTube incorrect!

Be safe out there! Don't trust anybody you don't see in the mirror when you're alone.

I disagree. I think if anyone is "touchy" about this it's because they want to feel like they can say what they want in private. It's not about the content of what he said, it's about where he said it. I agree that private institutions have the right to have whatever moral clauses they want - and Sterling knew the constitutional by-laws of the NBA. But I think moral clauses in general are worth discussing because of cases like this. And I do think public opinion had something to do with Sterling's case because as I said before, his racism was common knowledge. The NBA never acted until the public heard the tape and were outraged. The NBA acted in their own best interests and I don't blame them for that. I'm more surprised that the public can't see the long term effects of something like this.

Morals and what is outrageous can change on a dime. Originally Posted by Alastair

People can say what they want inthe privacy of their homes, what people are touchy about is being called out for their bigoted beliefs. Donald Sterling isn't being threatened with jail, a fine, or community service. How is he not free to say what he wants? Honestly.

Bigots hate being exposed as two faced when their real feelings as exposed. Spare with crying about, "People will shun me if my private racist conversations are made known." Uh yea. Most people would be shunned by the public at large if they knew you saw escorts. That's life. People that think things through realize that humans are individuals, not groups. Don't make statements attributing stereotypes to an entire group people, and you can avoid trouble.

I would be shocked if the owners force him out. They don't want to open this door. Back door deal will happen where he decides to sell without a vote. Originally Posted by Boltfan

They really don't have that choice. He's had a history of racist behavior / comments that they have ignored. If they strike a "deal" it will come with the appearance that they accept it.

Bitches always be causing trouble. I'd find something to sue the fuck out of her for.


Side note: anyone remember back when Alec Baldwin cussed out his 12yr old daughter on tape? Called her a "selfish pig" and other little sprinkles of fatherly love. I don't remember privacy being an issue back then. Definitely more concern in today's world.

Even when humans share the same race, family, religion, and speak the same language; they still find a reason to hate, disparage, fight, and kill.

Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

Very true. It's innate in our genetic makeup. It's existed through all of human history.

Within us there seems to be a need to be clannish and to discriminate against others who we perceive as being different in some way. Like you say, even people of the same race often find something to dislike about the people who live over the next hill.

It's in us and it often finds a way to foster and gain strength even when there is no logical basis for it. It must date back to the prehistoric ages. When another group of humans showed up, there was the possibility that they might plunder our food and possessions and even kill or steal our women and children. Since probably only the strong survived the ensuing battles, their genes carried forward.

Look at today's sports fans. People get beaten and even killed because they wear the colors of another team. "They're different from us, they're a threat and they must be hated."
It's illogical and it's wrong, but it exists. If it's not controlled in some manner, it will always quickly accelerate.

It's not illegal to be racist. You're as free as a bird to be racists. What you're not free to do is live free of the consequences of being a racist. If you pop off about no liking blacks, Jews, Hispanics, etc., you're very likely going to be fired from your job. You damn sure will if you work for me. I don't take kindly to people who take a salary from me and do stupid shit that might piss off customers (or judges or jurors).

You will also find that you have a lot fewer friends than you used to. I don't knowingly associate with racists. Nor do I recommend that others do so. The idiots that go around bleating about freedom of speech really want freedom from the consequences of their stupidity. Sorry, that's not the way it works.