neither of your analogies are comparable to this situation. if you make a racial slur at work you could be violating your work's rules. freedom of speech is about government interference, not the ability of private business to create rules of what they deem appropriate behavior. if you started yelling profanities in court you would be charged with the disruption, not the vulgarity. there is kind of a seminal freedom of speech case where a person wore a t-shirt that had FUCK written on it that pretty much is the benchmark for your freedom of speech. hint -- the citizen won the case, so your example wouldn't be about profanities at all. we have freedom of speech. this isn't a freedom of speech issue since it isn't a government prosecution, it is an issue of how much punishment the league can levy against Sterling for what he said.
Except nurses are licensed by a state board and you could lose you ability to practice over something like that. And last time I checked many towns have ordinances against using profanity as well as contempt of court. What part of either of those isnt government interference? And besides that the people who are saying freedom of speech aren't talking about government specifically, they're talking about the league, the media, the fans. Which implies your can say what you want without repercussion. Which you can't, so it's kinda a moot point. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
that would fall under unprofessional conduct, not merely a speech issue. more on that below. contempt of court is a conduct issue, not merely the speech. again, more on that below. some towns have those ordinances, but most aren't enforced. but that doesn't apply to your specific argument of cursing in a court room. then they are incorrect in the use of freedom of speech. being ignorant of what freedom of speech covers doesn't negate the freedom of speech that is protected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California this is the Supreme Court case that defended the speech within court. read it and note the differentiation between speech and conduct.
You're so focused on arguing with me you're missing the point. First and foremost before I became s nurse I went to school for law and spent many days in various types of court. There are laws against certain types of speech end of story. Guess what for every 1 case the supreme court hears, 300 go unaddressed. And yes people do feel repercussions from it. One Wikipedia page doesn't change reality. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
it is not a wikipedia page. it is a Supreme Court ruling, the highest court in our country. the wikipedia page is not the information, simply a source that is providing the information. the fact that you want to minimize a landmark Supreme Court ruling as simply "One Wikipedia" page significantly represents how rational you are are, and your rationale dictates how serious you should be taken. clearly I have taken you more seriously than is warranted. how about you replace your statement with the appropriate description and attempt to defend its ridiculousness. I'll do it for you: "Guess what for every 1 case the supreme court hears, 300 go unaddressed. And yes people do feel repercussions from it. One Supreme Court ruling doesn't change reality." yes, it does.
It's "you're", not "your". Check that next time you think about calling someone a fool. Btw, the "legal analysis" going on in this thread is LOLworthy. _
I highly doubt Sterling loses ownership of the team. He IS the owner, he owns it. We have ownership laws, and he is protected by them. The NBA might have a system to remove him but he can take it to court if that does happen. The people expecting Silver to remove him today are crazy, this will be a very long process.
Well whats your take on whats going to happen? I cant see him geting removed today under any circumstance, and if he did get removed, wouldnt he have the ability to take this to court? (Unless when he signed the contract to buy the team, he agreed to forfeit all court procedures if a situation like this happenned)
Since they would be dealing with the NBA by laws it would go to arbitration and I don't think he would win. Really all the owners can do is vote to completely abolish the Clippers organization and that would set a precedent that could lead down a slippery slope. It will be very interesting to watch this news conference and see just what the NBA plans to do.
LOL. Do you not realize you can contract away ownership rights? And once you do that, "ownership laws" no longer protect you? Do you not realize you can contract away the right to seek redress by the judicial system? And once you do that, and you go to court, the court kicks your case out? Lets say you joined a club and the club set up a bunch of rules, two of which said (i) if you violate our rules, we can kick you out of the club on a vote of 3/4 members and (ii) you can't sue the club in court, if you disagree with anything the club does, you have to submit to binding arbitration, and once the arbitrator rules, that decision is binding and not subject to legal review. Still have the same opinion? _
And I dont think the NBA owners would vote him out, at the end of the day its about the money and he has been supporting an NBA franchise for over 30 years which is signifcant for the rest of the owners imo.
No, he does not have the right to go to court. The NBA by-laws prevent it--the NBA owners don't want their disputes to be heard in court. That's why every owner submits to binding arbitration for all disputes. Of course he could SEEK to go to court, but his case would be dismissed, probably on summary judgement. _
Umm check my other post, I realize that you can contract away the right to seek redress. Anyone who has signed a contract would be aware of that.
So now you're changing your opinion suggesting that owners will keep him in? Before it sounded like you were saying that they couldn't force him out, because of (LOL) "ownership laws". Seriously, that one was funny. Ownership laws. _
Your post was contradictory and naive. But you're probably right, I'm actually just an astronaut, not a lawyer. _
You aren't a laywer, the fact that you did not know a district attorney can press charges goes to show how much you know.
It's not voting him out, its voting to completely dismantle the entire Clippers franchise from my understanding of it, it would be used more as a threat to kind of force Sterling's hand to sell the team. I'm pretty sure they can't strip his ownership and leave the Clippers intact without going to supreme court and the NBA would lose there since the voice recording was illegally obtained it would not be permitted as evidence.
