mvscal wrote:When thoughts and opinions are punished, there is no such thing as freedom of speech.
There is no such thing. Never has been, never will be.
It is entirely irrelevant whether or not the punishment originates with the government.
It is quite relevant.
The end result is a coerced conformity of thought and corresponding loss of freedom which would have appalled the Founders.
I think they’d be fine with it.
Let’s first determine where our common ground lies. I think you agree there never has been nor will there ever be absolute freedom of anything (with one exception, which I’ll address later) in any civilization. Nor is absolute freedom even desirable. Speech or expression that results in undue physical, reputational, or financial harm (i.e., slander & libel) should be restricted, as should the worn-out example of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no evidence of fire. Freedom of religion is also not absolute. Establishment of a religion that includes human sacrifice as a sacrament or ritual, for instance, would not be legally tolerated, nor should it be. So can we agree that our use of the word
freedom really refers to degrees of freedom (to use a statistical term), and not
true or
absolute freedom? If so…
You don’t believe in freedom of religion? As an atheist, I can pretty much publicly say whatever I want and do whatever isn’t legally proscribed with impunity – neither the government nor any private institution can “punish” me for expressing my beliefs or acting in a way that isn’t legally forbidden. I can drink, swear, blaspheme, screw who I want…whatever. But if I
choose to become a member of, say, the Catholic or Mormon church, I could not do some of those things without there being repercussions from those organizations if my actions became known to the church authorities – I could be “punished” with excommunication or by other means, including financially if I happened to be a pastor, priest, elder, or in some other paid position. My “livelihood” could be compromised if I say or do something legal that goes against the doctrines of those organizations. To some extent, the risk of having membership “revoked” and other punishment meted out for non-adherence to behavior prohibited by the church, which is otherwise legal, can be considered at least a mild form of coerced conformity of actions and expressed thoughts. (No one can be punished for thoughts until they’re expressed.)
If I’m following your line of “reasoning” correctly (and I’m not convinced I am), it seems like you’re saying private organizations should have no rights to limit the actions & expressions of their members beyond those of non-members. Is that your stance? If so, by extending all citizens’ rights to members of private organizations, the government is essentially prohibiting the establishment and existence of those organizations. By affording those rights to individuals, the government would be further limiting the rights of private organizations beyond what it already does to establish and institute their own bylaws & regulations. I don’t think the Founding Fathers would be down with that.
I’m not sure what limits are expressly imposed on NBA owners, and I’m not going to research it. But let’s assume one of them is public expression of racist beliefs, and that the prohibition against it is made known to prospective owners before they buy teams. Owners can still believe whatever they want – they just can’t publicly express them without risking punishment by the league. In Sterling’s case, he did not intend for his beliefs to be publicly expressed, and the means by which they were made public may not have even been legal. Doesn’t matter. His beliefs were expressed and they were made public. Therefore, by definition, they became publicly expressed beliefs. He should’ve been more careful about expressing his beliefs to what he thought was a private (not public) audience, realizing they could be made public without his knowledge or consent. He fucked up, he paid the price, and the league has every right to do what it did. It’s a legally established private organization with few restrictions regarding the bylaws & regulations it can establish, impose, and enforce. I doubt the FFs would have a problem with that. They may even applaud it.
I mentioned the one exception to my assertion that there are no absolute freedoms. That exception is freedom of choice. We can all choose to do or not do, believe or not believe, say or not say, join or not join. There are consequences to almost every choice we make. If we choose to become members of a particular church, we agree to abide by its rules even if we don’t necessarily believe everything the religion preaches. If we choose to act criminally, we subject ourselves to the punishments mandated by our laws. If I choose to buy a basketball team, I agree to the terms of buying it. If I don’t want to abide by the restrictions imposed on team owners, I have the choice to not buy the team.
Donald Sterling bought a basketball team and violated a league policy. He didn’t have to buy or keep the team, but he
chose to. He now lives with the consequences of that choice, and there is nothing illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, or un-American about what the league did to punish him.
