Conditional Freedom of Speech

dnldstrlng2The unfortunate turmoil caused by someone secretly recording a private conversation with Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling who allegedly made some remarks that expressed opinions that the media have quickly labeled “racist” is being driven down the same one lane, one-way road where the media supports free speech only when it stays within the PC boundaries established by them. 
What was said was not a public statement but in a conversation to another individual who secretly recorded the exchange, obviously for a specific and damaging purpose. This issue has been ignored as is the lack of interest in honoring a person’s privacy that the media deems unimportant if the content is juicy enough. That being said, several things needs to be understood; what was actually said did not deprive or advocate the economic or social deprivation of any kind to a protected minority. What was said did not prevent any protected minority from obtaining work or a position of employment. What was said was an expression of preference and since liking or disliking anyone or any group is not illegal, why is there not ANY discussion of the ethics of exacting a non-judicial monetary penalty such as a loss of job or career based on biased information exposed as a result of a surreptitious recording that seems was specifically intended to damage the reputation of Mr. Sterling. 
When was the last time anyone of us voiced an opinion or belief to another person in private that if recorded and aired would be personally or professionally embarrassing? Exactly; that is the intent of this action by liberals – to force Americans to get used to keeping certain opinions unsaid and providing self-censorship because you never know what you say will be used against you. Bottom line what was said was an opinion that although crude should be protected under free speech, and the airing of such along with the widespread and growing lynch mob mentality that the speaker should face extreme retribution on an act that was both non-criminal and specifically did not result in any discrimination, should be addressed as what it is; biased political correctness to apply social justice meted out by the liberal media.
In an interview seen on CBS (in a recording that seems to be no longer available), Magic Johnson mentioned that since the NBA is “70 percent” African American, Mr. Sterling’s alleged comments were very incorrect. What does that mean? That since African-Americans were in the majority in this example that the white minority should be automatically deferential and watch their words? What rolled off his tongue so easily was that whites have no right of free speech if it expresses  a personal dislike, even if what is said does not violate existing discrimination laws since in the NBA there are seven black players for every three white ones? Seems so.
It appears the real questions here are:
1. Should a recording of a private conversation, done for a specific purpose to do economic harm to a second party be readily and unquestioningly used in the manner that this has?
2. Should expressing an individual preference where one does not advocate or cause any actionable illegal discrimination rise to the level of attention that this event has?
3. Since the alleged comments were not illegal or suggested performing illegal activities, but their recording without knowledge by both parties are illegal in many states, why is the focus on the comments and not the actions and motives of the person or persons who secretly recorded Mr. Sterling?
Personally, I think Mr. Sterling’s alleged remarks were crude, but I do respect his right to express his like and dislikes as long as it does not violate another’s person’s rights. It seems the media (and even the POTUS) is “stuck on stupid” by supporting blatant political and racial correctness and ignoring Mr. Sterling’s RIGHT to express any opinion, especially in during a private conversation, without fear of economic, political or legal penalties. Honestly is there is a caveat, an asterisk on every American’s RIGHT of free speech when it comes to expressing certain likes and dislikes? 
I guess the message that is being sent is that white Americans have to watch their words. Or maybe we should prove a point or two and not watch our words, talk what we want to talk about and discuss those topics that Hollywood, the President and the Media wants us to stay silent on.
Maybe we should start THAT dialogue.

Comments are closed.