Teams are prepping scenarios where the cap is 10-15% lower due to the NBA situation with China

[Pointgod]

It is freedom of speech. I don't like people getting into other people's business, but it is what it is. I don't think Morey has any business talking about HK politics, but he's still a free person. I'm not ready to abolish freedom of speech even when I don't agree with somebody.

NBA banned Donald Sterling.

You have a point. Racism is one example where freedom of speech is limited. Nothing is absolute.

Freedom of speech is simply means the government can’t punish you for speech. It doesn’t mean a private company can’t decide to terminate you. That guys Sterling example is idiotic. Moreys example is actually a free speech issue because it’s the government of China pressuring the NBA and Rockets. It’s not an organic movement.

[xdrta+]

NBA banned Donald Sterling.

You have a point. Racism is one example where freedom of speech is limited. Nothing is absolute.

Freedom of speech is simply means the government can’t punish you for speech. It doesn’t mean a private company can’t decide to terminate you. That guys Sterling example is idiotic. Moreys example is actually a free speech issue because it’s the government of China pressuring the NBA and Rockets. It’s not an organic movement.

How is it a free speech issue because of the government of China? US free speech has nothing to do with any other government. They can do whatever they want without affecting US free speech.

[Jcity08]

NBA banned Donald Sterling.

Donald Sterling is free to say racist things about Black people all he wants. He's not free however, from the consequences of doing so.

+1. People seem to forget the other part that comes with free speech. Nothing in this world is truly free.

To add to your points, at least in the U.S., Hate speech is constitutionally protected, so the government can't step in an make a judgement. But Companys don't have to protect peoples right to Hate speech and can & will reprimand you for it.

So, there is a whole lot of misinformation being thrown around.

In some countries, Hate speech laws are enforced, in some others, they are not enforced.

People can be racist or hateful all they want and at least in the U.S. the government cannot silence that person. However, the general public isn't the government and cam tell you to get ****.

[Pointgod]

You have a point. Racism is one example where freedom of speech is limited. Nothing is absolute.

Freedom of speech is simply means the government can’t punish you for speech. It doesn’t mean a private company can’t decide to terminate you. That guys Sterling example is idiotic. Moreys example is actually a free speech issue because it’s the government of China pressuring the NBA and Rockets. It’s not an organic movement.

How is it a free speech issue because of the government of China? US free speech has nothing to do with any other government. They can do whatever they want without affecting US free speech.

I was comparing the idiotic Sterling situation with this one. Sterling example is not a case of free speech. Morey example is closer to an example of free speech because it’s the government placing undo pressure on someone.

[xdrta+]

Freedom of speech is simply means the government can’t punish you for speech. It doesn’t mean a private company can’t decide to terminate you. That guys Sterling example is idiotic. Moreys example is actually a free speech issue because it’s the government of China pressuring the NBA and Rockets. It’s not an organic movement.

How is it a free speech issue because of the government of China? US free speech has nothing to do with any other government. They can do whatever they want without affecting US free speech.

I was comparing the idiotic Sterling situation with this one. Sterling example is not a case of free speech. Morey example is closer to an example of free speech because it’s the government placing undo pressure on someone.

But it's not the US government which is all that matters relating to free speech. Chinese government can say or do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with US free speech.

[Wallace_Wallace]

What’s that one saying....”Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”

Sounds so brave! Except for when you really don’t have the guts to do it.

"something", not "EVERYTHING". There's a distinction there. A pretty clear one.

The nba seems to be saying "free speech for our employees". Not the political stance against or for whatever it is. And thus the nba is now looking at a possible 10-15% cap drop.

Believe in something, that "something" in this case is freedom of speech. I applaud the NBA if they really believe in that.

They are not quite sacrificing everything, that "everything" is a 10-15% decrease of the salary cap. So free speech can be bought for about that much (lose about 4 million dollars from a 30 million/year contract)? Then in that case, shut up and dribble is the stance they should've taken.

[scrabbarista]

How is it a free speech issue because of the government of China? US free speech has nothing to do with any other government. They can do whatever they want without affecting US free speech.

I was comparing the idiotic Sterling situation with this one. Sterling example is not a case of free speech. Morey example is closer to an example of free speech because it’s the government placing undo pressure on someone.

But it's not the US government which is all that matters relating to free speech. Chinese government can say or do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with US free speech.

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

[MrDollarBills]

Donald Sterling is free to say racist things about Black people all he wants. He's not free however, from the consequences of doing so.

+1. People seem to forget the other part that comes with free speech. Nothing in this world is truly free.

To add to your points, at least in the U.S., Hate speech is constitutionally protected, so the government can't step in an make a judgement. But Companys don't have to protect peoples right to Hate speech and can & will reprimand you for it.

So, there is a whole lot of misinformation being thrown around.

In some countries, Hate speech laws are enforced, in some others, they are not enforced.

People can be racist or hateful all they want and at least in the U.S. the government cannot silence that person. However, the general public isn't the government and cam tell you to get ****.

Bingo. But to some folks, they think freedom of speech is limited if you can't call someone the N word and not lose your job or get your teeth knocked out for doing so.

[xdrta+]

I was comparing the idiotic Sterling situation with this one. Sterling example is not a case of free speech. Morey example is closer to an example of free speech because it’s the government placing undo pressure on someone.

But it's not the US government which is all that matters relating to free speech. Chinese government can say or do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with US free speech.

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

[MrDollarBills]

It is freedom of speech. I don't like people getting into other people's business, but it is what it is. I don't think Morey has any business talking about HK politics, but he's still a free person. I'm not ready to abolish freedom of speech even when I don't agree with somebody.

NBA banned Donald Sterling.

You have a point. Racism is one example where freedom of speech is limited. Nothing is absolute.

No it is not, this is 100% false. This is a country that still has the Ku Klux Klan and Neo Nazis holding rallies in open public. Dudes were in Charlottesville with tiki torches spouting white supremacist and neo nazi propaganda. Dudes were in the streets with nazi flags. People in the South are still allowed to fly the Confederate flag, a flag that represents treason. This is all protected under the constitution.

An American can run out into the street right now and start spewing racial slurs, and faces no penalty from the Government, because their freedom of speech is a protected right no matter how awful what they say is.

However, society, including employers, does not have to tolerate what that person is saying or has been documented as saying, and can and will deal with them appropriately.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions.

[MrDollarBills]

But it's not the US government which is all that matters relating to free speech. Chinese government can say or do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with US free speech.

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

China attempted to silence and deny the right of free speech to an American citizen via their corporate influence on the NBA.

[SpreeChokeJob]

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

China attempted to silence and deny the right of free speech to an American citizen via their corporate influence on the NBA.

China is not denying free speech. Morey is free to say anything. And China is free not to do business with the NBA.

[xdrta+]

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

China attempted to silence and deny the right of free speech to an American citizen via their corporate influence on the NBA.

That's just silly. China can try to do anything they want. If the NBA is influenced by them that's on the NBA. They can just ignore China.

[scrabbarista]

But it's not the US government which is all that matters relating to free speech. Chinese government can say or do whatever they want, it has nothing to do with US free speech.

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

I asked a simple question.

[scrabbarista]

"Hong Kong police deliberately murder." From a protest yesterday. I wonder if any Americans who've spoken up about police violence in the US will take any notice, do any research, or have the courage to comment.

[xdrta+]

Do you support foreign governments using economic influence to censor citizens of other countries, even in other countries, or are you just parroting the truism, "Anyone can do whatever they want. But there are consequences?"

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

I asked a simple question.

No, you asked a foolish question that shows you have no clue about the issue. Who cares what I support or don't support. The issue is China and the NBA, compounded by some people's misperceptions of free speech.

[scrabbarista]

It's hard to tell what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say China is censoring US citizens in China? In a foreign country you have to follow that country's laws. Are you trying to say they're influencing American companies to censor people? That's on the American companies, that's the NBA censoring people. What's your point?

I asked a simple question.

No, you asked a foolish question that shows you have no clue about the issue. Who cares what I support or don't support. The issue is China and the NBA, compounded by some people's misperceptions of free speech.

Well, I wouldn't want you to waste your time discussing the issue with someone who doesn't have a clue. Please enlighten me. Also, please at least make an attempt at answering my question. An insult doesn't count as an answer, sorry.

[scrabbarista]

"Most people condemn the actions of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist government, and the atrocities they committed before and during World War II, yet it is important to remember that those actions did not occur in a vacuum.

Many leading businesspeople and government officials were willing to ignore what was happening in Germany before the war, because they believed that business or sports could be separated from politics, even though the Nazis established their first concentration camps just weeks after Hitler became chancellor and began rounding up political opponents.

The camps were a way to indefinitely incarcerate those the regime considered a security threat, as well as eliminate individuals or groups away from public or judicial purview or exploit them as forced labor.

The CCP has followed the Nazi playbook since the founding of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC), much as the Soviet Union did with its gulag system.

To stay silent is to be complicit, as Beijing well knows. That is why it reacts so aggressively to those who criticize the CCP’s policies and what it views as its national mandate."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/index.html

Watch on YouTube

[Vader]

"Hong Kong police deliberately murder." From a protest yesterday. I wonder if any Americans who've spoken up about police violence in the US will take any notice, do any research, or have the courage to comment.

Cop killings happen about 1000 times per year in the us, should not Americans save their energy for commenting their own cop killing instead of an unknown case in a place at the other end of the world ?

[Vader]

"Most people condemn the actions of Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist government, and the atrocities they committed before and during World War II, yet it is important to remember that those actions did not occur in a vacuum.

Many leading businesspeople and government officials were willing to ignore what was happening in Germany before the war, because they believed that business or sports could be separated from politics, even though the Nazis established their first concentration camps just weeks after Hitler became chancellor and began rounding up political opponents.

The camps were a way to indefinitely incarcerate those the regime considered a security threat, as well as eliminate individuals or groups away from public or judicial purview or exploit them as forced labor.

The CCP has followed the Nazi playbook since the founding of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC), much as the Soviet Union did with its gulag system.

To stay silent is to be complicit, as Beijing well knows. That is why it reacts so aggressively to those who criticize the CCP’s policies and what it views as its national mandate."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/index.html

Watch on YouTube

Do not trust a single word from CNN when issues are related with China or you will embarrass yourself by being a tool.