ka48963245:

I like the way Mark Cuban thinks!

You can hate racist and punish him.

But you cannot force Sterling to sell his team base on his private conversation.

I don't like Sterling but this is not a right way to handle this situation (force him to sell the team)

There is none, nothing on NBA regulation mention that you will be punish because your private conversation is inappropriate.

I despise Donald Sterling, but NBA will only bring troubles on themselves if they eventually force him to sell the franchise.

And other owners who say this will create a better future for the league, pffs. All they want is piece of share after Clippers is sold.

But just for now, commissioner Sliver is on the right track.

btw, I wonder what would happen to Sterling's girl friend.  

  Mark Cuban 講的很中肯沒錯, 可是在這時間點講這樣的話, 可能會有人認為他在為 Sterling 護航?

是否以後, 任何球隊老闆被抓到什麼小辨子, 就會有如此下場?

---

Kenny Chen

Kenny:

ka48963245:

I like the way Mark Cuban thinks!

You can hate racist and punish him.

But you cannot force Sterling to sell his team base on his private conversation.

I don't like Sterling but this is not a right way to handle this situation (force him to sell the team)

There is none, nothing on NBA regulation mention that you will be punish because your private conversation is inappropriate.

I despise Donald Sterling, but NBA will only bring troubles on themselves if they eventually force him to sell the franchise.

And other owners who say this will create a better future for the league, pffs. All they want is piece of share after Clippers is sold.

But just for now, commissioner Sliver is on the right track.

btw, I wonder what would happen to Sterling's girl friend.  

可能會有人認為他在為 Sterling 護航?

I will just say those people are bandwagoner

They don't even know what exactly happened.

It is very important to know that his racist comment is based on his private conversation, not a public conference.

You can despise him, hate him.... but I don't think he can't think the way he wants to think. 

如果今天Sterling的言論是歧視黃種人的話

我就不相信那些黑人會在那邊假正義

 

---

我是湖人球迷,同時也是Melo的球迷

Kenny:

marchen:

stevkang8:

"合不合法有什麼關係?反正他犯了眾怒"

難道這就是亞洲第一個民主國家教出來的思維模式?

基本上會說出這種化的人大概有再想 "那以後什麼都用多數決好了 管他法律不法律"

1. 亞洲第一個民主國家應該是菲律賓，這不重要 XD

2. 聯盟犯法了嗎？我不敢說一定沒有，但如果有犯法，不用等訟棍Sterling出手，媒體早就先引爆了。

3. 用曖昧的內規去處置一個犯眾怒的傢伙，這情況在任何企業都可能發生。

4. 憲法和法律保障人權，但可沒保障NBA有義務幫你賺錢。

5. 聯盟的存在意義是為了幫30個老闆賺錢，不是伸張公平正義。

marchen 兄所講的, 正是我想表達的, 尤其是第 3 點.

亞洲第一個民主國家不是蘭芳共和國嗎

---

正妹的外表，不是她們努力得來的，你不需要對她們的外形有過度的崇拜。多想著你有的，不要想著你沒有的，這樣你就不會覺得自己矮了她們一節。

Jimmy.L:

如果今天Sterling的言論是歧視黃種人的話

我就不相信那些黑人會在那邊假正義

 

如果今天是一個台灣知名企業老闆跑出來歧視新住民

你會替那個老闆吶喊助威還是幫那些新住民聲援

不要以偏概全好嗎 

 

---

台上演得汗流浹背
台下罵得口沫行非
也不知是哪邊不對

Jimmy.L:

如果今天Sterling的言論是歧視黃種人的話

我就不相信那些黑人會在那邊假正義

 

噗！我嘴裡的水差點噴到螢幕...

1.Sterling的言論歧視了黑人，黑人群起進行反制叫做假正義？

2.今天如果他歧視的是黃種人，黃種人自己不起來捍衛自己的權利，黑人(或其他人種)幹嘛要來幫你爭取你自己都懶得爭取的權利？

---

Basketball is not math. Basketball is chemistry. Basketball is physics. Basketball may even be psychology. But basketball is not math. -- Kathy Goodman

關於四分之三多數決這一點, realgm 上有條文:

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/233171/NBA-Constitution-Excerpt-On-Termination-Of-Ownership

其中我摘下來 (粗體的部份是我標示的):

The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following:

(a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association.

...

ARTICLE 14A
CONSEQUENCES OF TERMINATION

(a) When the Membership of a Member is terminated, such Member and its assets, properties and operations shall be placed under the management and control of the Commissioner, who shall have the following powers: to cause the Member’s Team to continue to play its Exhibition, Regular Season, and Playoff Games; to collect all revenues from every source payable to the Member and apply such revenues, to the extent available, to the payment of such Member’s debts and obligations; and, as directed by a majority of the Board of Governors (the Member whose Membership was terminated not being considered a Member of the Board of Governors for the purposes of this Article), either to transfer such Member’s Membership (including its Player Contracts and other assets) in accordance with and subject to Article 5 or to liquidate the Player Contracts and other assets of the Member in an orderly manner in the best interests of the Member and its creditors, and the Association, in each case at such prices and on such terms as the Commissioner shall deem reasonable and appropriate.

(b) When the interest of any Owner is terminated, that interest shall, unless the Commissioner has approved an alternative arrangement, be placed under the management and control of the Commissioner, who shall have the power to exercise all of the rights otherwise exercisable by the Owner of that interest, including, but not limited to, any management or voting rights and the right to transfer all or any portion of that interest in accordance with and subject to Article 5 at such prices and on such terms as the Commissioner shall deem reasonable and appropriate.

---

Bjork本人就是音樂!

Slight:

事件導火線是Sterling的女友上傳了一張與前NBA球星「魔術」Magic Johnson的合照，似乎讓大老闆醋勁大發，以下是他在公共場合對女友說的話，有些不堪入目。

「妳可以帶黑人回家、妳可以和黑人『睡覺』，妳做甚麼都隨便妳，我只有一個很小的要求，不要張揚，也不要把他們（黑人）帶到我的比賽裡。」Sterling說。
http://www.nownews.com/n/2014/04/27/1208841

V：我不懂，我不了解你的觀點，在我的成長過程中並不是這樣被教導的，不是像你這樣。

DS：那麼好吧，如果妳不這樣認為—不要來我的比賽，不要帶黑人來，妳也別來。

V：你知道你有一整隊球員都是非裔美人，為了你打球嗎？

DS：妳真的是…我知道嗎？我支援他們，給他們食物、衣服、車子，和房子。誰給他們這些東西？是別人嗎？我知道我有一整隊非裔美人—誰創造這些比賽？是我，還是他們創造了這些比賽？是 30 支球隊的老闆創造了這個聯盟吧？

究竟是種族歧視到怎樣？坦白講還不是很清楚，這種賭氣的話，不是情侶之間都很容易講的嗎？

牆倒眾人推？NBA看Sterling不爽很久了？

這裡其實是這次錄音內容的法律上的爭點, 它造成 Sterling 這次要面對來自二個不同方面的爭議

1. 法律上涉及種族歧視問題

2. 涉及黑人, 他與聯盟間的問題

就第 2 點, 我們先放在一邊, 就以這些現成中文翻譯對白來看 (其實直接分析英文會比較好):

法律上種族歧視的關係是否成立, 要看相對人, 由對白中看出的, Sterling 可能涉及歧視的是:

a. 他的女朋友
b. 想與她一起進場看比賽的黑人

之前講過, 就法律上, 種族歧視成不成立, 不是建立在 Sterling 本人內心的想法, 而是他是否運用自己的權力去對外造成實際的影響, 由這樣來看:

a. 是不成立的, 因為其女友的種族在此並沒有影響到, 是否對黑人的眨抑或不尊重上

就 b. 而言, 在解釋上有困難的, 有 2 個可能, 第一, 因為 Sterling 本人並未直接對去強迫黑人, 不能入場觀看 Clippers 的比賽, 不管是否有他女友作陪, 而且他也沒有在當他女友和黑人一起, 則處罰他們禁止入場 (注意! 這才是真正在法律上被認定的歧視), 換言之, Sterling 只是希望他女朋友不要這樣作, 單純的要求本來就是誰都可以提出, 而且更重要的, 沒有人單純因這個要求而有權利受損

但是第二, 我們由這句話: DS：那麼好吧，如果妳不這樣認為—不要來我的比賽，不要帶黑人來，妳也別來。(這句話最好直接看英文原文) 也可以有空間去解釋, Sterling 在此基於膚色, 要限制他女友 Stiviano 攜帶球伴的選擇自由, 而且是在公共空間, 在 NBA 的範圍內, 可爭議的就是, 這件事似未發生, 也就是說無由證明, 如果她真的帶黑人去, Sterling 有能力也會禁止 

這上面 2 點才會是以後司法上認定 Sterling 有沒有歧視黑人的重點, 但這與 Sterling 和 NBA 間的問題不是同一碼事, 在法律上, 如果將來真的涉及針對 Sterling 起訴, 我認為他的律師一定會主張這是 "freedom of speech" , 總之, 這方面只怕要讓他被判有罪很難, 相信 Sterling 也是因此而有恃無恐, 這錄音爆光也損害不大

---

Bjork本人就是音樂!

有些人一直在錄音帶的合法性上打轉，我認為完全是搞錯重點。

NBA是一個商業聯盟，不是法院，錄音帶的合法與否不是他們可以判定的，也不是他們關心的重點，重要的是錄音帶的真實與否，也就是Sterling是不是真的說過這些話。

Silver已經證實了這些話確實是出自Sterling之口，也就是說Sterling確實說出了種族歧視的言論，這件事不管錄音帶是合法還是非法都不會被改變。而Silver的決定就代表了NBA官方面對種族歧視的態度，他如果敢從輕發落，不啻告訴大家「是的，我們歡迎種族歧視」。那麼隨之而來球員、球迷的反制，社會輿論的聲討，會讓事情更難善了。試問，NBA的比賽還要不要打？票還要不要賣？球團老闆還想不想賺錢？再者，NBA念茲在茲的全球化呢？一個有種族歧視嫌疑的聯盟還有辦法推展全球市場嗎？海外的週邊商品還要不要賣？

而且NBA就像是一個大公司，如果三十幾個股東裡出了一個言行損害了其他股東權益的人，其他的股東能不能趕走他，端看這個公司的規定，跟錄音帶合法與否一點關係都沒有。如果Sterling不爽跑去提告，才會有錄音證據合不合法的問題，而且誰輸誰嬴還難說得很。不過就算會被告聯盟還是應該下重手，不然怎麼跟球員交代？怎麼跟消費者交代？怎麼跟社會輿論交代？一個處理不好，球員罷賽、球迷拒買還兼聯盟形象受損，NBA還想不想繼續玩下去？

總之NBA現在就是被Sterling捅了一刀，當然要想辦法先止血。什麼都不重要，賺錢最重要，所以第一時間就是把下金蛋的球員和買金蛋的消費者先按捺好，避免傷害擴大，接下來就是想辦法趕走Sterling避免往後又被Sterling多捅幾刀。

---

Basketball is not math. Basketball is chemistry. Basketball is physics. Basketball may even be psychology. But basketball is not math. -- Kathy Goodman

之前講過了, 一個人自己錄自己說的話當然沒問題, 怎麼不能拿到法院上?

舉一個大家看到過的例子, 014 和陳啓祥的對話被陳偷錄下來, 這些錄音也上了法庭, 它沒被當作證據採用是因為陳對錄音的內容作了變造, 剪掉了不利自己的部份, 因此不能採用, 不是因為陳沒經林的同意而把雙方的對話錄下來

就是因為 Sterling 和他律師很清楚, 這些錄音是合法的, 否則事情己經鬧出來, 如果這是非法上不了法庭的, 那 Silver 問起他又何必承認, 他甚至也不必否認, 只要推說不知道, 忘記了, 只要阻止讓法庭或其他法定機關能去證實這些內容的真實性, 不就是最多各說各話, 你又能拿 Sterling 怎樣, 不要說罰款和禁賽了, 連開記者會都有問題

我知道前面 Marchen 大誤會的地方在那裡, 我如等下有空會把他誤會的加州的法律規定貼上來解釋

 

---

Bjork本人就是音樂!

KR大，我一開始就說過錄音合法與否並非此案重點，所以也沒打算論是非。不過若你能告訴我誤解在哪裡，我會很感激。

你也知道我說的是這條： 

632.  (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the
person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

弱弱提醒樓下，「比例原則」 是台灣人最愛濫用的法律詞彙前三名，這東西是談憲法用的，台灣人連冰淇淋打幾圈都能扯比例原則...

Kawakami Rinitsu大說得很詳細了

我想在世界各地民主國家的刑法法律都是一樣的

必須要有實際上的「行為」產生

才能夠說他觸犯法律

比如小明私底下跟朋友說他很討厭某人

想開車撞死他

但是小明並沒有真的去開車撞死他

這樣法律上能判他罪行嗎?

當然是不行的

Sterling實際上並沒有做出任何種族歧視的「行為」

他私底下愛怎麼說他討厭黑人應該都不會違法的

當然聯盟有聯盟的內規可以處置他

就像國有國法家有家規一樣

但我相信Sterling如果硬要抵抗的話

提起行政訴訟(指民法)勝訴的機率還是很大

畢竟罰錢事小

你只因為人家私底下說種族歧視的話就要逼人家賣球隊甚至還拿不到賣球隊的錢

這樣的比例原則是大有問題的

但從事發到現在Sterling都靜悄悄的來看

應該是自知理虧想摸摸鼻子算了

反正現在他把快艇隊賣掉也是賺了一筆

他也不是真的多愛籃球

相信他可以拿那些錢去投資其他有興趣的事業

---

人,在開始放棄戰鬥的時候,才算輸
　　　　　　只要還堅持戰鬥,就還沒輸

marchen:

KR大，我一開始就說過錄音合法與否並非此案重點，所以也沒打算論是非。不過若你能告訴我誤解在哪裡，我會很感激。

你也知道我說的是這條： 

632.  (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of
all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any
electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records
the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried
on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year,
or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the
person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section
or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by
imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the
state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

弱弱提醒樓下，「比例原則」 是台灣人最愛濫用的法律詞彙前三名，這東西是談憲法用的，台灣人連冰淇淋打幾圈都能扯比例原則...

好, 謝謝了, 這涉及到加州刑法第 632 條的問題, 還有 FCC 的規定, 整理資料和說明要些篇幅, 剛才本來想簡短的講 

我會在用最短的時間內用私信回答你好了

---

Bjork本人就是音樂!

錄音帶合不合法 其實對Silver的決定沒有影響 這點他在記者會上的Q&A就說了:

 http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-silver-hammer-the-banning-of-donald-sterling-and-unrest-in-these-playoffs/

Another reporter wondered whether it was appropriate to punish someone for hateful words uttered in private, and perhaps recorded illegally. It was an attempt to introduce the bogus First Amendment defense that doesn’t really apply here. Silver could have given a vague answer, or spouted legalese about how the league exists in a weird legal purgatory between private enterprise and public “single entity” exempt from some antitrust laws. He didn’t: “Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views.” 

---

We ride together
We die together
Red Bulls for life....

而且老實說 Sterling若不是老番癲以為自己刀槍不入

要不然就是他堅信自己扭曲的想法其實是正確無誤

一般人在這種情況下跟怒火中燒的Silver見面 好歹也會裝一下表達歉意或懺悔之類的

Sterling顯然是異於常人

 

 http://grantland.com/features/sterlings-fold/

And after Silver announced that he was banning Donald Sterling from the NBA, one reporter asked if Sterling had expressed any remorse for these tapes.

“He has not expressed to me directly any other views,” Silver said. Next question. 

---

We ride together
We die together
Red Bulls for life....