The Problems that Arise when Private Ownership Makes you a Public Figure.

The sports world has been abuzz with the recent slew of racially insensitive remarks made by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, in which he criticizes his girlfriend for publicly fraternizing with minority groups. Critics came calling for his head, reports indicated the league might take his position away from him. Unfortunately for Sterling, new commissioner Adam Silver handed down a lifetime ban on Sterling and ordered him to pay a 2.5 million dollar fine on Tuesday.

Now whether you believe him to be right or wrong in the things that he said, and I think I can rightfully assume the majority of people would disagree with him, the truth is that he has an absolute right to have his own opinions. While it may seem odd to you that a man with racists tendencies would field a team comprised of mostly black players (as it does to me), there is a certain expectation of freedom of speech in this country, and what he does in his private phone calls and conversations has to fall under that right.

Take, for example, the case of Mark Cuban. The eccentric and outspoken owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks has put his foot in his mouth his fair share of times, and has never been one to keep quiet about something he does not like. For this, he is praised and respected, all for using his own freedom of speech to voice his opinions.

Is anybody in the league office attempting to take away Cuban's ownership?

No.

Now, to clarify, the right to freedom of speech only pertains to the government and does not specifically limit the NBA, a private entity. It also does not only protect popular opinion speech, in fact this is not at all what it was meant to protect. It was, in a way, meant to protect the opinions of those not in the majority, of which Sterling definitely applies to in this case.

So is the message the league office is trying to send that owners who harbor unpopular, even racist opinions cannot own an NBA franchise?

Well, technically that's not against the law. As a private institution the league can probably kick out Sterling for what he has said, but I think that would be wrong, and not because I condone his actions. Cuban has spoken out on the issue (no surprise there) and has said that the league kicking out owners is a “slippery slope”. When the league officials start to punish people for what they say or do in the privacy of their own homes, it will start a precedent for a punishment driven league. Cuban understands it is a bad place to end up, and I agree.

Sterling would have been punished heavily, even without the ban. Players would not line up to play for a team owned by a bigot, and draft picks would not be excited to go there. He's done the most damage to himself that he could, and has alienated his entire team. That is more severe of a punishment than he should receive for a private remark that unfortunately happened to become public.

 My main point is this. I don't know how the comments Sterling made got to the public, I don't know how the conversation with his girlfriend got taped, but either way, they were obviously remarks meant only for her. A private conversation, on a private phone, and likely in a private residence. The public expects Sterling to answer for what he does in his private life yet how many people lead private lives that may be frowned up in their own workplace?  Why does being the wealthy owner of a private sports team suddenly come with the expectation of perfection? 

It doesn't, at least for now. And it shouldn't. Adam Silver has thrown the book at Sterling to start his tenure off with an iron fist, and Donald Sterling is the unfortunate scapegoat for him to do so.

Why I like to blog

Creativity is a talent that can be expressed in an assortment of ways.

For some people, their creativity comes in a pattern of brush strokes on a canvas, or shaded areas of graphite on paper. Some people live to manipulate digital images, creating images and arrangements that defy plausibility.

Writing has become a sort of art for me, a way to express my opinions on an assortment of platforms where others can view it. Sometimes the platform calls for structure, and a restrictive style of writing. I've written a broad variety of pieces for all manner of publications, and the one truth I've found in my writing career is that this blog is the only place where my writing is truly mine, and the freedom to write what I want is only limited by my creativity.

Editors are a true example of the phrase "a double-edged sword". When I write a 500+ word feature piece, I'm bound to make a few grammatical errors, or accidentally misspell something. It's natural, I'm a human, it's not a big deal. Editors have saved me plenty of embarrassment by correcting these errors before other can see them. However I have dealt with a handful of editors in my budding career and at one point or another they have all taken a buzzsaw to my work before publishing it.

Some do it for "flow", believing that adding or subtracting a sentence makes the article smoother. Others do it because of a personal preference for how they might say something over the way the writer has it written. 

"Frankensteining" is what I call it, because it is essentially the result that you get when you take an article written one way by someone, and then interject someone else's ideas haphazardly amongst the piece. Sometimes, it isn't too bad, heck, sometimes it might even make the piece better. Far too often, however, an editor can completely commandeer a piece, much to the chagrin of the writer.

I'm not worried about whether you sympathize with my opinion here, because that's not the point. I feel like I have neglected this blog in favor of publishable material, which is unfortunate, because having the ability to write something for myself that I can share with you, my (I'd assume) loyal readers is something I should not take for granted.