L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,703
Yes there are seperate issues involved in this process. To me it has always been a question of what actions can the league take within their jurisdiction. Attempting to take control of his team certainly seems to overstep their authority. Sterling as an individual is subject to the rules and policies to which he contracted to abide with but I don't think he is obligated to subject personal property to the league's control.That's not picking and choosing, it is indisputable that the league has the jurisdiction to fine players (and coaches, and owners) for saying things the league does not want them to say. It happens every season in every one of the major sports in this country. And if the league simply fined the shit out of Sterling you wouldn't have heard me say jack shit on the subject, ever. I not only acknowledge that the league has the jurisdiction to fine players and owners, I support that jurisdiction.
The league taking away Sterling's ownership interest is (1) not something that happens every season; (2) not something that the league indisputably has the right to do; and (3) is still not a matter of free speech. The issue with Sterling isn't his right to speech, it's an issue of whether someone else has the right to strip away his owned property without due process in a court of law.
A better analogy to what Sterling is going through would be if I was advocating the league fining Roger Mason, banning him for life, and then trying to foreclose on his house. And in that case I would side with Mason. The league can fine him, but it can't take away stuff he owns.