Quote:
Originally Posted by ProfCrash
Hitch, he admitted that was his voice and that he made the statement. His girlfriend could could be in trouble though. I am not sure she is allowed to record conversations legally. And his wife has gotten herself into legal trouble for trying to prevent people of color from renting in the family owned apartments. Many a discrimination law suit filed against both people.
|
@Crash:
Doesn't matter whether he admitted it or not. What matters is the subsequent admissibility of those tapes and the statements thereupon, (which, remember, are the basis for the NBA determining to force this man to sell his own property) IN COURT, which is where this is, inevitably, headed. There's tons of cases on this topic--that evidence obtained illegally isn't usable. Whether it will apply here, can't know, but that's not really my issue. It's the lack of Due process, utterly, that's my issue on that front.
@cromag:
Yes, and you know why? (Those HOA's, and the like?) Because a court case found, not that long ago, that the one-sidedness of HOA's, fining, etc., violated the Constitution. I can go rummage around and find the precedent, if needed, but that's why HOA's can no longer fine at will, AND (of specific relevance to this topic), make those fines into liens, and take/foreclose on someone's property, using that power.
I think, however, that some of you are in the weeds, in terms of what I'm actually concerned about. It's not that some allegedly racist billionaire is going to lose one of his toys; it's the whole instant, "stir the you-know-what, work people up on the Net and TV, and ka-blammo, stuff happens" aspect with regard to Freedom of Speech, and freedom of thought--whether we like that person's thoughts or not.
I find that far more troublesome than the rest, although I
still stand by my position that until professional sports does something about the horrific behavior of its PLAYERS, those "boys will be boys" money-makers, they have nary a leg to stand on to get pissy about an owner being an asshat. I will guarantee you, abso-freaking-lutely, that every single one of those players has the exact same morals clause--perhaps even more tightly worded--as an owner. What's sauce for the owner is DEFINITELY sauce for the player, for if anyone stands as "role models" (gods help us) to young people, it's not some billionaire that they've barely heard of; it's the players.
So, since my point seems to be getting lost, I'll just drop it.
Hitch