Why Donald Sterling is not Brendan Eich

Because I objected to the scalping of Brendan Eich for having donated to Proposition 8, a friend has (perhaps jocularly) challenged me to defend NBA team owner Donald Sterling against an effort to push him out of his franchise for racist remarks and behavior.

I’m not going to do that, because I don’t think these cases are at all parallel. The differences begin with this: Brendan Eich was targeted for bullying because he performed a political, expressive act that his political opponents disagreed with. In both law and custom, we recognize that political expression needs to have the strongest possible protection. None of Sterling’s racist behaviors can reasonably be characterized as political expression.

Another key difference: there is no evidence that Eich ever engaged in bigoted behavior against individual gays – in fact, there are plausible interpretations of Eich’s behavior that imply no prejudice at all (he might, for example, have believed it was important to assert popular sovereignity against a court that has exceeded its remit). There is, on the other hand, ample evidence of Sterling’s racial prejudices being expressed against individuals over whom he had power.

I admit to some uneasiness about the outcry against Sterling; it especially disturbs me that he was outed by illegal taping of a private conversation. I think Kareem Abdul Jabbar put the case that there is excessive finger-wagging going on here very well. But those concerns don’t rise to anywhere near the level of alarm I felt about the way Eich was treated.

Honesty compels me to admit that I am opposed on principle to some of the anti-discrimination laws that Sterling is now said to have been violating for a long time. If he doesn’t want to rent his property to blacks or hispanics, I don’t think the law should force him to do so. But I do think it is ethical and just for him to be boycotted for this odious prejudice, and I join Kareem-Abdul Jabbar in wondering why nobody organized that sooner.

109 thoughts on “Why Donald Sterling is not Brendan Eich

  1. “If he doesn’t want to rent his property to blacks or hispanics, I don’t think the law should force him to do so”.

    I can understand why one would have this opinion. I’m just wondering if a society where there is no coercion (where a doctor can choose the patient he can treat or not , where a teacher can chosse the pupil he wants to teach to etc …) is viable.

  2. @foodige

    Here is a hint: Why have racists had to enshrine racism into the legal system over and over again?

  3. “he might, for example, have believed it was important to assert popular sovereignity against a court that has exceeded its remit”

    Are you saying that the courts have never overstepped their bounds in any other area? If the courts are so far out of control, there should be many issues to choose from to oppose them on, so why choose this one? If, on the other hand, this is unique, then maybe the narrative of the courts being out of control doesn’t hold together so well.

  4. In a situation where black players were free to vote with their feet, I would say the guy can say any crazy damn thing he likes (he’s as much a nutjob as a racist in my view) and reap the consequences when no one will play for him.

    A professional sports league like the NBA has a draft and other restrictions on player movement (I’m not an expert on the NBA so I may have the details wrong, but talk to me about cricket!) I think he has to be held to a much higher standard because of that.

  5. My only issue as a sports fan in Los Angeles is this: Why the Outrage? It’s not like we don’t know he’s a racist asshole already. He’s been sited multiple times for discrimination against minority tenants in his various property. Elgin Baylor just lost a lawsuit to try to get back pay from Sterling when he got fired. He’s also the worst professional team owner ever.

    None of this is news. Are we only now outrage because there’s an audio tape? Hell, I don’t need that to know it.

  6. Are you saying that the courts have never overstepped their bounds in any other area? If the courts are so far out of control, there should be many issues to choose from to oppose them on, so why choose this one?

    What gives you the right to ask that question you goddam fascist?

    You know nothing about Mr. Eich except he happened to give money to a cause that offends you, or seems to.

    It’s none of your business *why*.

  7. There was an NPR interview yesterday on All Things Considered with Keyon Dooling, who played for the Clippers and was vice president of the NBA Players Association for six years. He said that he wanted to ensure that Donald Sterling had due process, but also that he should be “reeducated”.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=307766291

    Reeducated. Every time I come up with a response, I’m at a loss for words.

  8. @Random832: “why choose this one”?

    As much as I prefer William O. B’Livion’s response, I’ll engage a bit.

    There’s a bit of history here. First, gay marriage was legalized by the legislature, then it was overturned by a ballot initiative. Then that was overturned by the State Supreme Court, so the people went back to the ballot box to say “We Really Mean It!” In this case, the people had overruled the legislature, and then the Courts were coming back to overrule the people again. This was inside the context of a debate where civil unions available to gay couples had all of the legal benefits of marriage *except* for the title.

    I don’t think that issue was worth passing a ballot initiative or a Constitutional amendment for. However, it’s also very difficult to stand up and say that in this reasonably nebulous area of law that there is a great deal of oppression here which requires the Court to act in a novel way. Were not the full slate of rights and privileges available to them under the civil union, then yes.

    In addition, few issues actually make it to the point that a Constitutional amendment is put forth to the voters. There are many, many issues on which the legislature or the courts overstep. However, there aren’t coordinated and effective efforts to overturn them. Pick an issue you don’t like that the Court has decided of late. The only one I can think of which has created a broader discussion to change the Constitution is the occasional mention of “altering” the freedom of speech and of the press in this country in response to the Citizens United decision. Other than the occasional talk show and Facebook post, there isn’t a campaign you can readily give money to.

    The Proposition-8 campaign existed as a real issue with real people behind it, where a simple cash donation could be made and it would have a visible impact. Very little else exists to make donations towards with that level of direct impact. Except possibly broad “right-wing causes” impacting legislation, which Eich was also known to contribute to.

  9. “I think in particular of his repellent description of his black football players as “beautiful animals”.”

    I think they’re basketball players. Or does Sterling also own a football team too?

  10. @foodige

    It _was_ viable, there is plenty of history of that, but it is a different question whether you would _like_ that kind of society. Basically what you get is that people very quickly form groups based on who likes whom and they set up their own businesses, schools, hospitals, whatnot, which largely means they live in segregated neighborhoods. There are two major issues with that.

    One is the possibility of violence between groups who don’t associate with each other and thus lack empathy, easily forget that the other group is human. I am not in favor of enforced sensitivity trainings, but on the whole it is just good to talk sometimes with people from groups you have a problem with and realize they laugh on the same jokes and have the same problems with their bratty kids and overly critical grandmothers and whatnot.

    Another thing and that is basically a bit complicated. Basically you guys in the US found that separate is never equal, that for example black and white schools meant bad schools for blacks. However e.g. the Dutch history had segregation between Protestants and Catholics, having own schools, hospitals, football clubs I think it was called the “society of columns” and it was not that bad. It is not 100% clear what is the reason that it did not work out the same way.

    Perhaps the difference is between segregation between groups of roughly equal power and wealth and segregation between groups who don’t? If a community is rich enough to provide what they need for themselves, it is OK to be – voluntarily – segregated? Are rich people gated communities segregated and is it bad for them? So I guess it is something like that. Segregation is only bad if one of the groups is really poor or otherwise oppressed, marginalized or something, if they are doing well then it is not.

    So this is the big problem with that type of society. The automatic forming of segregated groups can leaves some groups really worse off. Generally the least liked groups.

    It can even get worse from that. Basically if my tribe regularly robs your tribe, it is possible that I will dislike you as a reverse Franklin effect. So if we both “agree” to segregate you are bound to have no good schools in your hood and no chance to make one.

    So this seems to be the basic issues. But I am not saying they cannot possibly be solved under a voluntary basis, I am just saying it is not something simple.

  11. Except, of course, for how far more bigoted and offensive statements about men and even boys in general are routinely accepted as normal and acceptable.

    Funny how we get outraged about the Tuskeegee Airmen and similar cases, but the outright industrial commoditization of the sexual flesh of newborns of exclusively one gender by federal law — how’s that compare in terms of the State exceeding its remit, kids? — gets a complete pass, because, well, religion. Or parents. Or. . .something.

    [shrug]

    Well, actually, we do know what that ‘something’ is.

    When I google ‘neonatal fibroblast’, the top 10 results now include price sheets from apparently 6 different medical supply companies for vials of processed infant male prepuce, 1 PDF manual on their use from a 7th company, 1 definitional page from an embryonic development and stem cell compendium, and two research papers on neonatal rat fibroblasts.

    So we really do live in an actual Soylent Blue dystopia, where we are industrially commoditizing the sexually handicapping, permanently amputated, normal, healthy, and functional erogenous flesh of innocent children of exclusively one gender by federal law.

    Can somebody explain to me why I should care even remotely about racism in comparison to that?

  12. I get being torn. I’m not inclined to defend his actions. That said, between the “reeducation” comment mentioned above, how the information was obtained, and the ongoing tone of hysteria, part of my immediate gut reaction, despite believing in this case the guy is a racist, is “Joy. Another five minute hate”

    And personally, I fully believe that business should have the right to withhold service at any time. Hell – we go around suing bar owners if they don’t cut customers off early enough… which is a BS transfer of responsibility. And I knew more than enough “progressives” who’d be happy to ask customers with confederate battle flags on their shirts to leave…

  13. The Sterling episode is a symptomatic bellwether of numerous societal pathologies currently afflicting the US; the least of which is his personal prejudice and bigotry. Such as:

    Privacy invasion is OK (or at least excusable) if the target is not conforming to approved social norms.

    Public lynching in the media is also OK as long as it sells and the herd is appeased.

    At a time when our “poor” are dying of obesity-related diseases, this is what passes for hardship and controversy.

    Twitter is turning hysteria into a national addiction.

  14. @Shenpen
    ” If a community is rich enough to provide what they need for themselves, it is OK to be – voluntarily – segregated?”

    Well, what do you think of the Amish? I’m not sure “rich” is the right word but they have limited need of the rest of us. They grow their own food and can make their own clothes and build their own homes. While they do buy things from the outside world, they would survive quite well if they didn’t (that is, unless the outside world decided to kill them off).

    I’m sure they think the rest of us are terrible sinners.

    But I have no problem with them being my neighbors.

  15. I’ve noticed something about the Sterling kerfuffle. If you don’t advocate stripping him of ownership followed by his crucifixion, then you’re seen as “defending” him. If this keeps up, then he will be like Eich in that it never was about Sterling nor Eich, it’s about conditioning the rest of us to reflexively attack anyone on the wrong side of the Overton Window.

  16. > in fact, there are plausible interpretations of Eich’s behavior that imply no prejudice at all

    I don’t think that’s tenable.

    Eich has donated to culturally conservative politicians since the Buchanan campaign.[1] It’s possible that he always donates to the most anti-tax candidate, but at best that means he is indifferent to alarming rhetoric about how gays, women, and nonwhites are going to be the end of America. The Prop 8 donation clarifies it further since it’s solely a cultural issue.

    Furthermore Eich defended his position on gay marriage as something that was represented in the broader world community, for instance, Indonesia. “For Mozilla, it’s problematic because of our principles of inclusiveness, because the Indonesian community supports me but doesn’t have quite the megaphone.”[2] As Muslim countries go, Indonesia is relatively tolerant, but Sharia law is enforced in many places and even in the capital city of Jakarta, homosexuality is classified as a mental disorder.[3]

    I think the most economical explanation is that Eich really believes gay marriage is wrong. And there’s some indication he’s not on board with homosexuality as being normal.

    You may be right that, despite an apparently long-held and sincere belief, he is able to keep those opinions out of his work with Mozilla. I’ve talked to lots of people and none of them can remember any incidents.

    I am not sure I have a coherent opinion about whether he should have been CEO. It’s difficult to believe his values wouldn’t come up with regards to some decision as CEO; on the other hand, all evidence suggests he is capable of setting them aside. And he’s done a lot of good for the free and open source software communities.

    [1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controversial-mozilla-ceo-made-donations-right-wing-candidates-brendan-eich

    [2] http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-ceo-gay-marriage-firestorm-could-hurt-firefox-cause-q-a/

    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Indonesia

  17. Also noteworthy; the local chapter of the NCAAP gave Stirling a Lifetime Achievement Award (!) in 2009, and was prepared to honor him again this May.

    Apparently he was a major donor…

  18. >I think they’re basketball players. Or does Sterling also own a football team too?

    Oops. Thinko. Corrected.

  19. @ Acksiom: “Funny how we get outraged about the Tuskeegee Airmen and similar cases…”

    I think you mean the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiments. The Tuskeegee Airmen were generally seen as a positive development. The really weird thing is that both events were happening at roughly the same time, and the amazing success of the Tuskeegee Airmen did nothing to convince the supposedly educated men running the Syphilis Experiment to treat their subjects as anything but lab animals…

    @ Mike E: “Also noteworthy; the local chapter of the NCAAP gave Stirling a Lifetime Achievement Award (!) in 2009, and was prepared to honor him again this May.”

    From what I’ve read he was mainly trying to rehabilitate his name after his earlier exposure as a racist a-hole. IMHO, the local chapter of the NAACP has some splaining to do!

  20. >And there’s some indication he’s not on board with homosexuality as being normal.

    Hell, I’m not on board with homosexuality as being “normal”. It’s a developmental defect just like my cerebral palsy. Your thinking is confused; whether a condition is “normal” or not is irrelevant to the ethics of how we treat people who have it.

  21. > “beautiful animals”

    You’re misquoting him. What he actually said was “Look at those beautiful black bodies”.

  22. Sterling has been banned for life from the NBA and fined $2.5 million. There’s also reason to believe he may be forced to sell the team. Both CNN and Fox have the story.

  23. >You’re misquoting him. What he actually said was “Look at those beautiful black bodies”.

    Urk. I conflated two different reporets. Will just delete that bit; it’s not really necessary.

  24. Homosexuality happens in a percentage range from 7% to 15% across multiple species. Including bonobos, our nearest relatives. It’s not just primates, or mammals, either.

    If the Venn circles for “anti-evolutionists” and “LGBT rights activists” were printed on pages in the same room, I’d LOVE to see the contortions gone through to explain why something that’s as purely anti-Darwinian as homosexuality exists.

    On to the issue at hand:

    1) Sterling was the first owner to hire a black GM. In the mid-80s. Kept that man (Elgin Baylor) on the job for 7 years. This was in an era where people were saying that “black men, no offense, just don’t have the capacity to handle front office jobs in a situation as fluid and complex as the NBA.”

    2) Sterling pretty much kept his “racism” as a protest on who he’d rent to or try to avoid renting to. In his business operations, he hired and promoted black employees (and Asians, and Hispanics) at a better rate than most of his industry peers and contemporaries.

    3) This kerfluffle is built off of (what appears to be) an illegally acquired tape. This is very much “fruit of the poisoned tree.” If it were offered as evidence in either a civil or criminal case, a judge would throw it out.

    Eich, on the other hand:

    1) Made a donation that, due to California’s sunshine laws, became public. Note that Sterling’s donations to the NAACP and to the DNC are also revealed by this.

    2) Was asked by his employer to issue any kind of statement saying “Hey, my beliefs won’t change, but won’t impact how Mozilla is run.” His attempt at doing so was the “Well, in Indonesia, I’m an inclusive liberal…” response.

    3) Mozilla offered him his old CTO job, at the pay raise he was given as a CEO. He turned it down.

    Notice that on the last two elements, Eich made a choice. He was not fired. He resigned.

    So, the real similarity here is that there is no such thing as privacy. Anything you’ve done over the last decade and a half has left a trail on a database. Anything you’ve said on a phone could’ve been recorded by anyone along the line.

    Thinking otherwise is stupidly naive.

  25. Ken Burnside on 2014-04-29 at 14:38:27 said:

    “On to the issue at hand:

    1) Sterling was the first owner to hire a black GM. In the mid-80s. Kept that man (Elgin Baylor) on the job for 7 years. This was in an era where people were saying that “black men, no offense, just don’t have the capacity to handle front office jobs in a situation as fluid and complex as the NBA.””

    …and boy did Elgin Baylor prove them all wrong by… uh, putting together the worst team in the NBA.

  26. Eric, a possibly relevant difference is that a homosexuals are content with their orientation, especially if they live in cultures that don’t mistreat them for their orientation.

    So far as I know, CP simply makes people’s lives more difficult.

  27. Ken, Eich was fired. The offer of the CTO position was a fig leaf.

    Look up “constructive termination” some time.

  28. @ Garrett on 2014-04-29 at 10:59:12 said:
    > Reeducated. Every time I come up with a response, I’m at a loss for words.

    I think “The Fuck You Will” covers it nicely, and if that seems to fail loosening the cover garment starts the non-verbal side of the discussion.

    Racism is f*king stupid. It is irrational in most cases[1] (here the dude was banging a latino/black prostitute[2] while complaining about her hanging out black people. Other than talking to invisible space aliens or socialist “economics” I can’t think of much that is more irrational).

    But you have a right to be a racist. You have a right to be irrational.

    No one has the right to force you to believe a certain way[1]. Pay taxes, yes. Behave a certain way in public, within limits. But your mind is your own. Anyone who believes otherwise should be ridiculed. Anyone who attempts to force the issue should be treated as a threat to your life.

    [1] Arguably your parents do, but only to a point/age.

  29. 1) Sterling was the first owner to hire a black GM. In the mid-80s. Kept that man (Elgin Baylor) on the job for 7 years. This was in an era where people were saying that “black men, no offense, just don’t have the capacity to handle front office jobs in a situation as fluid and complex as the NBA.”

    Nah. Wayne Embry was the first black GM in the NBA; he managed the Milwaukee Bucks from 1972-1979. I’m not sure what your source is but it’s possible they’ve got an unconscious bias causing them to be sloppy about their research. If the source on Sterling’s hiring practices is the same, I’d be wary of that assertion as well.

  30. I am not taking his side, because what he said is bigoted. But he is in an industry where he is called an “Owner”. His assets are primarily black men who he has the ability to buy, trade and sell at whim to other “Owners”. Sometimes for cash, sometimes for another pick in the “Draft”. Do any of the terms and processes seem a bit slave like? “Where are you from? On down the road a piece on the Clipper plantation sir.”

  31. William O. B’Livion on 2014-04-29 at 15:37:12 said:

    “Racism is f*king stupid. It is irrational in most cases[1] (here the dude was banging a latino/black prostitute[2] while complaining about her hanging out black people. Other than talking to invisible space aliens or socialist “economics” I can’t think of much that is more irrational). ”

    The guy was “irrational” in his business practices that he was a billionaire property owner from catering to his customer’s preferences – rentals in Los Angeles with no black or Mexican neighbors.

    I’m sure though, that you know better and he would have been much more successful and not so irrational if he were not “racist”.

  32. Here is a good description of what’s really going on here, and much closer to the truth than anything the PC media will print. Bascally Sterling objected to his mistress posting photographs of herself with attractive studs without him, probably because he wanted to project an image of still having his mojo. Said mistress, possibly under coaching from her lawyer, calls him and after many leading questions, gets him to say things that could be constued as racist, while illegally recording the conversation.

  33. At least Sailer repeatedly labeled his speculations as speculations.

    I’ll grant that the argument seemed very weird, but I wrote it off to neither of them being very bright.

  34. >Eric, a possibly relevant difference is that a homosexuals are content with their orientation, especially if they live in cultures that don’t mistreat them for their orientation.

    Then consider deafness as an analogy. There are deaf-culture chauvinists who are not only happy about their inability to hear but actually want their children to be born deaf. Would you argue on this basis that deafness is “normal” or not a disability?

    I’ve noticed that people without disabilities tend to be tender-minded this way. On the other hand, my blind friend Catherine Getchell (you’ve met her) is even more scathing than I am about euphemistic language like “differently abled”. (And she counsels disabled people for a living.)

  35. About behavior being “natural” as something advantageous: the behavior of male lion killing lioness’ cubs by other sire to force lioness into heat is natural, but isn’t something we as humans want to emulate…

  36. >The guy was “irrational” in his business practices that he was a billionaire property owner from catering to his customer’s preferences – rentals in Los Angeles with no black or Mexican neighbors.

    That actually does raise an interesting ethical question. Suppose for the sake of argument that Sterling were not personally racist. Now suppose that he caters, as a businessperson, to persons who for perfectly rational reasons (say, differential crime rates) don’t want to have black or hispanic neighbors. Is this odious?

    If we judge that it is not, does the judgment change if some of his customers’ reasons are irrational prejudice? Is there a percentage threshold? How many of Sterling’s customers have to be bigots (that is, people emotionally wedded to false generalizations based on race) before enabling them is in itself odious behavior?

    Does it make any difference whether Sterling is personally racist? If so, why?

    I am not speaking of rights enforceable under law here. I think Sterling and his customers should have the right to discriminate for whatever rational or irrational reasons they choose, and not have their choices interfered with by law. No, my question is about what sorts of behavior a civilized person should condemn and shun a Sterling for.

    I don’t think it has an easy or facile answer.

  37. @William O. B’Livion
    “What gives you the right to ask that question you goddam fascist?”

    The fact that people feel the need to say things like well maybe it’s just a matter of general principle in his defense.

    If you’re going to stand on it being wrong to condemn someone for bigotry, then stand there.

  38. >If you’re going to stand on it being wrong to condemn someone for bigotry, then stand there.

    I think you missed William O. B’Livion’s point. It’s not really any of your business what Eich’s reasons were, and you don’t have any right to presume him to be a bigot because of his silence on the matter. This is not like the Sterling case, in which we have a history of racist remarks to go on.

  39. @Nancy Lebovitz
    > I’ll grant that the argument seemed very weird, but I wrote it off to neither of them being very bright.

    Sterling is a highly successful businessman. That seems to conflict with him not being very bright.

  40. So playing in the NBA is like slavery in some sense, as one commenter asserted?

    Did slaves ever get multimilliondollar contracts? Or get looked at as superstars? ‘Cause I don’t remember that being part of the deal.

    Nor were slaves free to quit any time they wanted.

    Let’s be sensible now. Being a pro athlete is a very different thing than picking cotton under the lash.

  41. Not saying Pro athletes are the same as slaves. I was just pointing out how this man accused of bigotry exists in one of the few industries in the US that have a relationship between the management and labor that use terms for people that mimmic the slave – master relationship. In how many occupations can you go up to an employee and ask who is your owner and get an answer that indicates another human being without raising an eyebrow? The NBA is one of a handful.

    To the superstar point, in ancient Rome, there were slave fighters that were well known and respected. They still had an owner and no freedom.

    As for the money side of things, without liberty there is no difference between a high priced slave and a low priced slave. In the NBA, if you don’t like your owner, your only recourses are to quit your livelyhood or attempt to get your owner to sell you to a better owner. I could see how a bigot could be attracted to a business like this.

  42. There’s a bit of history here. First, gay marriage was legalized by the legislature, then it was overturned by a ballot initiative.

    You got these two events backwards. The initiative came first, at a time when the legislature was saying “who, us? we’re not going to legislate gay marriage, nosirree, so this initiative is unnecessary”. Then a few years later, the legislature decided to ignore the initiative and legislate anyway. The opponents went to the state supreme court, which said “no, the legislature can’t override an initiative, but in this case the initiative was invalid because the state constitutoin requires gay marriage”. So the people said “fine, if you want to play the game that way, we’ll amend the constituiton so it doesn’t say what you just claimed it said”. The state supreme court accepted that it could do nothing more, so the supporters went to federal court, claiming that the federal constituiton requires gay marriage. A federal judge with a personal interest in the matter agreed, and the ninth circus said that only the state governor and AG had the right to appeal; since they refused to do so, no appeal could be heard. The supreme court agreed, so the ruling stands that a state governor and AG can nullify any initiative they don’t like, simply by refusing to defend it in court. All that remains is for someone to challenge Prop 13.

  43. Certainly homosexuality is not “normal” in that it is a minority trait.
    But if I recall correctly, there once was a study that came to the conclusion that the presence of (male) homosexuals in a group actually improved the interactions of all the men, acting as some kind of social “grease”.
    So it may be that having a certain percentage of homosexuals has benefits and leads to the development of enough gene combinations that will lead to homosexual behaviour, even if you consider that homosexuals themselves usually don’t breed. That would explain the fact that there is homosexuality in primates.
    Being outside the norm should not be considered being sick or being handicapped, per se.

  44. >As for the money side of things, without liberty there is no difference between a high priced slave and a low priced slave. In the NBA, if you don’t like your owner, your only recourses are to quit your livelyhood or attempt to get your owner to sell you to a better owner. I could see how a bigot could be attracted to a business like this.

    The analogy was tortured to begin with, and now you’re cranking it up to 11 to avoid having to admit error.

    There are other leagues, and there is free agency.

  45. Kurt if we accept that homosexuality is probably something linked to testosterone deficiency or prenatal testosterone working differently than usual (like, masculinizing the genitals but the brain only partially, whatever), then it makes perfect sense to think that given how high-T men tend to be rather competitive and confrontational, low-T men help easing the tension.

    Does anyone know if the exact shape of how men get fat is linked to testosterone? Like high-T men get big bellies, apple shapes, low-T men get big butts, pear shaped?

    Because there is a certain stereotype over here of the “peace-making pear shaped man”. The fat guy with the big butt, not the big belly, who just listens to everybody and calms everybody.

  46. Donald Sterling is a racist and an asshole. I don’t personally agree with his point of view, but I will defend to the death his right to hold that point of view and to express that point of view in a private conversation. Fining him $2.5 million, forcing him to sell the team, and banning him from the NBA is starting down a slippery slope, and I wonder at what point on that slope do we start prosecuting people for thought crimes?

    The allegations of racism under discussion here were part of a private conversation between two individuals. It’s not as if he came out and made a grand public announcement or implied that his views represented those of the Clippers organization or the NBA as a whole. He made private comments during a private conversation to someone he (wrongly, as it turns out) trusted. To condemn him for those private comments is no different from condemning him for believing in the wrong god or privately supporting the wrong political party.

    As Monster said above, this isn’t really about Donald Sterling and his racism – it’s about conditioning the rest of us to reflexively attack anyone who doesn’t believe the Right Things. The society at the bottom of that slippery slope isn’t one I want to live in.

  47. First Amendment attorney Marc Randazza, in an editorial on cnn.com, argues that what happened to Sterling was morally wrong:

    “In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano’s behavior represents the horrifying future. Shouldn’t we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man’s racist blathering?”

  48. I find the smug self back patting on this nauseating. I liked the article you linked to from Kareem Abdul Jabbar in the OP, he captures a lot of good points. But here are the plain facts — he got sued for some alleged discrimination. This is America. You can get sued for anything, and settling is more an indication that is is cheaper to buy off the plaintiffs than it is to fight for justice — especially in these sorts of cases. I have no idea if Sterling’s business practices are racist. Frankly I don’t care. It is none of my business. If you are Black or Hispanic and you believe that about him, why on earth would you do business with him by trying to rent one of his apartments?

    But the most important part of this story is this — he was eviscerated for something he said in private to his girlfriend. Really? We aren’t even allowed privacy in our most intimate speech?

    And what excuse does the NBA have? First of all they are a big rent seeking corporation using the force of law to exclude market forces. In a sense, Sterling has profited from this and so has entangled himself with the whole nest of government. The fact that he got rich off government rent seeking makes me a lot less sympathetic to him.

    But my question is this — surely the NBA’s justification is that they don’t want people who do bad things to represent their league, after all, what about the children? However, two words — Denis Rodman. The NBA in particular is FULL of thugs, gangbangers and the utter scum of the earth made good, apotheosized even, because they are freakishly tall and have a strange skill in putting certain balls through certain apparatuses. I think that if the NBA really, honestly wants to clean house, then they should start on the floor, and if they do, they are going to have to ramp up recruiting efforts. For some reason, basketball and thuggery seem to go hand in hand.

    I read somewhere that 68% of urban black teenage males believe that they will be able to reach the NBA. The league encourages that sort of thinking, and consequently leaves these boys with ridiculously unrealistic ambitions that cause them to neglect the things that will actually provide them with a future. Donald Sterling’s pillow talk is statistical noise compared to that in terms of the negative impact it has on young urban black culture.

  49. @ Jay Maynard: “In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano’s behavior represents the horrifying future. Shouldn’t we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man’s racist blathering?”

    As the Purple Sage said, “Let these two asses be set to grinding corn!”

  50. > The differences begin with this: Brendan Eich was targeted for bullying because he performed a political, expressive act that his political opponents disagreed with.

    Why is one thing political and the other not? What exactly defines the line that separates things that are not so odious that they are not considered legitimate political views, from things that are?

  51. >Why is one thing political and the other not?

    Is this some sort of attempt at a trick question? Voting, donations, and public debate are political actions – they’re attempts to move public policy. Arguing with your girlfriend is not. For that matter, refusing to rent to blacks and latinos is not.

  52. > For that matter, refusing to rent to blacks and latinos is not.

    You are prohibited from doing so as a matter of public policy. Is civil disobedience not political?

  53. >Is civil disobedience not political?

    When it’s a demonstrative act, yes. But Sterling didn’t take a public stand and say “I refuse to rent to minorities because I don’t concede that the law can Constitutionally control my private dealings” (a position I would agree with). He didn’t join the debate; he tried to avoid it.

  54. Shenpen on 2014-04-29 at 11:29:21 said: the Dutch history had segregation between Protestants and Catholics, having own schools, hospitals, football clubs I think it was called the “society of columns” …

    The term is “pillarization”. In many cases, the “pillars” also include newspapers and political parties. And in some cases, paramilitary forces. Relatively harmless in the tolerant, orderly, peaceful Netherlands. Very toxic in Northern Ireland. Cancerous in Lebanon. (Though to be fair pillarization in Lebanon reflects the traditional social basis, rather than how it has developed recently.)

  55. jfre on 2014-04-29 at 23:02:45 said: In how many occupations can you go up to an employee and ask who is your owner and get an answer that indicates another human being without raising an eyebrow? The NBA is one of a handful.

    In pro team sports, the owner is the person who owns the team. That’s his title. He doesn’t own the players. The team has an exclusive and transferable contractual right to the player’s services in that sport. For new players (and new players only) that contract can be imposed through a draft, but that only lasts a few years. Also, in just about every sport that I know about, the team only gains the exclusive right to negotiate with a drafted player for one year.

  56. > About behavior being “natural” as something advantageous: the behavior of male lion killing lioness’ cubs by other sire to force lioness into heat is natural, but isn’t something we as humans want to emulate…

    That misses the point – if something is both natural and not harmful, by what measure is it not normal, other than by being a minority trait (which puts it alongside blue eyes and blonde hair)?

  57. I don’t agree with Sterling’s rant (& if he did discriminate against minority tenants, the housing authority should have punished that) — but this is the biggest overreaction I’ve ever seen anybody outside government make. A lifetime ban and a $2.5M just fine for telling his ex not to bring her black boyfriends to his workplace is completely un-called-for and beyond the pale.

    I also strongly suspect that if the races of the owner and his hate-objects were swapped, neither league officials nor the fans would have dared say a word about it.

    It is probably just as well that he’s out of the NBA. But I both expect and hope that he will sue the ex-GF for recording him and collect at least $2.5M.

  58. esr> None of Sterling’s racist behaviors can reasonably be characterized as political expression.

    Another key difference: there is no evidence that Eich ever engaged in bigoted behavior against individual gays – in fact, there are plausible interpretations of Eich’s behavior that imply no prejudice at all (he might, for example, have believed it was important to assert popular sovereignity against a court that has exceeded its remit). There is, on the other hand, ample evidence of Sterling’s racial prejudices being expressed against individuals over whom he had power.

    In the spirit of testing your framework for assessing both incidents: Let’s stipulate that Sterling had not misbehaved against individual Blacks, but had expressed support for the re-introduction of Jim-Crow laws, and had donated money to campaigns trying to bring that about. Would that be fine with you? Would public pressure on him to sell his franchise be fine with you in this hypothetical case?

  59. It is starting to look like there is a good deal more (several different links included there) going on here than the accepted narrative would have it. I can’t find the link now, but I have read speculation this (apparently illegal under Calif. law) recording of Sterling was the result of a failed extortion attempt. There is an unanswered question as to what legal theory grants the NBA commissioner the right to strip an owner of his financial investment absent due process?

    As to Sterling’s “racism”; it seems equally arguable that he was objecting to the woman posting pictures of herself in the close presence of Magic Johnson at Clippers games. Whatever sexual hang-ups and/or racial insecurities Sterling may have, his objecting to a woman publicly identified as being “his mistress” being also publicly associated with an iconic figure from the Clippers cross-town rivals within the NBA as being a more than reasonable position for him to assert.

    Follow the links provided via the Instapundit link; I expect this incident may provide a couple years of intermittant entertainment should Sterling choose to wave everybody’s laundry around in public through the civil litigation discovery process. I predict a lot more dirt will come out than anybody anticipates should he decide to spend a few od his billions suing everybody else.

    Whether or not that proves true, I have read no speculation as to who is pushing this story to criticasl mass level. My own theory is that this has been siezed upon by the feminist segment of the California branch of the LGBT political interest group – likely as a mechanism to recapture lost leadership authority within the group. Note, I did clearly state this was my own speculation.

  60. Will: The NBA Constitution, which Sterling agreed to abide by as a condition of being granted the franchise, is not public…but does, apparently, give the commissioner of basketball the ability to levy the fine, and ask the other owners to demand that he sell the team, for “the good of basketball”.

    Sterling has a reputation for being litigious. He’s already said the Clippers are not for sale. I strongly suspect that we’ll see this dragged through the courts for the remainder of Sterling’s life.

  61. Thomas: Not going to speak for Eric, but I would have the same problem with hounding Sterling out of basketball – and especially depriving him of his property rights – in your hypothetical case. Political activity is political activity, no matter how much we disagree with it, and political speech deserves absolute protection unless it constitutes an immediate, direct incitement to committing crimes…but then, a riot has crossed the line from political speech to crime, anyway.

  62. Will Brown, I’ve been surprised at how little talk there’s been about his being obnoxious to his girlfriend. I consider this evidence that feminists aren’t behind the attack on Sterling.

  63. Will: The NBA Constitution, which Sterling agreed to abide by as a condition of being granted the franchise, is not public…but does, apparently, give the commissioner of basketball the ability to levy the fine, and ask the other owners to demand that he sell the team, for “the good of basketball”.

    It’s now public (PDF). It is unclear to me from a layman’s reading whether or not it gives a 3/4ths majority of the owners the right to force a sale in this case, although there are definitely cases where they can do it. However, it takes the same 3/4ths majority to change the Constitution, so if the owners want to kick Sterling out they can.

    Since Sterling agreed to this when he bought the franchise, he’ll have a hard time contesting this. This is also one of those cases where the choices he makes with his property affect other property owners. It’s reported that all six teams playing NBA games last night were ready to boycott; this would have caused significant damage to the league and hurt the property values of his fellow team owners. It’s difficult to object to those owners reaching decisions which allow them to protect those property values in the way they see fit, although we may of course disagree with those decisions.

    Glenn Reynolds is surprisingly willing to express opinions without having read the contracts in question, for a lawyer.

  64. >Let’s stipulate that Sterling had not misbehaved against individual Blacks, but had expressed support for the re-introduction of Jim-Crow laws, and had donated money to campaigns trying to bring that about. Would that be fine with you? Would public pressure on him to sell his franchise be fine with you in this hypothetical case

    I would condemn his position, but I would defend his right to express it. I’ve tolerated JAD commenting here, after all…

    I can’t answer the second part without a more specific account of what you mean by “public pressure”.

  65. Will Brown on 2014-04-30 at 21:05:31 said: …what legal theory grants the NBA commissioner the right to strip an owner of his financial investment absent due process?

    The comments that I have seen are that Sterling should be run out of the NBA; but he’s properly entitled to the current value of the team. The only loss imposed on him would be of future gains in the value of the team. But since his conduct has almost certainly damaged the value of the league, i.e. the property of the other owners, this seems appropriate to me.

  66. “There is an unanswered question as to what legal theory grants the NBA commissioner the right to strip an owner of his financial investment absent due process?”

    Well, that’d be whatever legal theory makes professional sports leagues exempt from antitrust laws, without which the whole thing comes crashing down and individual teams would be free to choose whether or not to associate with his team.

  67. @Rich Rostrom:
    “damaged the value of the league”

    This is the same argument that busybodies in HOAs or the local zoning commission use in order to limit what people can do to enjoy their own property. I don’t buy it, and if they don’t like it, they are welcome to sell instead.

  68. “This is the same argument that busybodies in HOAs or the local zoning commission use in order to limit what people can do to enjoy their own property. I don’t buy it, and if they don’t like it, they are welcome to sell instead.”

    Yes, it is. @ESR, how does your brand of libertarianism feel about HOAs?

    On a basic level, a HOA is a contract you are required to agree to in order to own property / live in a certain area. Another interesting question is, what is the difference between an HOA and a state?

  69. Observe how esr has to move ever leftwards, or else suffer persecution, and to prove himself sufficiently left, has to support the persecution of his fellow leftists. Thus each leftist has to move further left, and has to support the persecution of his fellow leftists even more.

    This is the left singularity, which results in ever leftwards movement, ever faster.

    It is always cut short internally by dictatorship, a Stalin or a Cromwell who, finding himself outflanked on the left, makes it as illegal to be to the left of him as it has long been illegal to be to the right of him, or else cut short by foreign conquest, the foreign conqueror is drawn in by weakness, and by the extermination of people he cares about.

    If not cut short, the final outcome would be infinite leftism in finite time, where everyone tortures each other to death, and the last torturer commits suicide for his inability to inflict infinite torments.

    The closest approach to an actual left singularity was Chang Hsien-chong, who reduced the population of Szechwan from three million to seven thousand, largely by torturing people to death.

    Had his career not been cut short by imperial reconquest, would have doubtless reduced the population to zero.

    Chang Hsien-chong distributed the wealth of the landlords to the poor, then ate the landlords for oppressing the poor, then exterminated the intellectuals for infecting the poor with insufficiently progressive ideas, then flayed the poor alive for being insufficiently grateful for having the wealth of their oppressors redistributed to them.

    Of all those who write in English, the historian Donnithorde was in the best position to know the truth about Chang Hsien-chong. The above account is a summary of his report on Chang. Leftists, which is to say all modern historians, either rewrite Chang as a mild mannered agrarian reformer or else a horrible reactionary installed in power by the CIA. (I am just making up the part about the CIA, since Chang was killed in the seventeenth century, though I would not be surprised to find it true – modern historians, which is to say modern leftists, go completely incoherent and make no sense whatsoever when reporting these events. To get a report that is evidence based and intelligible, you have to go back to books and articles written in a time when the left was less terrified of itself.)

  70. Fortunately such enlightened souls as JAD are in possession of FTL drives allowing them to remain outside the event horizon, in his case the drive shunted him into an alternate universe where the situation is quite different.

  71. >@ESR, how does your brand of libertarianism feel about HOAs?

    They’re voluntary contracts. We’re OK with voluntary contracts.

    >what is the difference between an HOA and a state?

    No monopoly on licit use of force, for one thing.

  72. In the context of:

    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5704&cpage=1#comment-573517

    I hereby make it known: the most evil mass murderer of all time was Wat Tyler.

    All intelligent, well-educated people know that Wat Tyler’s horrific crimes against humanity typify the Murder Singularity, and by studying the history of why Wat Tyler was such a horrible person, we can learn how to construct a new, just social order. (Of course, Western education isn’t as good as that of the People’s Republic of China, so you have to go to China to find well-educated people. Just about everyone else is a barbarian.)

    White people can’t write good history about Wat Tyler; they make excuses for him and downplay his crimes because they are white and he was white.

    Of all those who write in English, the historian Cao Nima (of the Beijing University of Technology) is in the best position to know the truth about Wat Tyler. So all of you should discard everything you *think* you know about Wat Tyler, and accord absolute academic authority to *my* favorite historian – Cao Nima.

    Everyone who tries to introduce other historians’ texts as evidence is a barbarian, sliding ever rightward into the Murder Singularity.

  73. @esr:

    > They’re voluntary contracts. We’re OK with voluntary contracts.

    Unfortunately, in some cases, the contracts are modified ex post facto.

    >>what is the difference between an HOA and a state?

    >No monopoly on licit use of force, for one thing.

    At least in Texas, some HOAs have the best of both worlds — the ability to foreclose on your house (which is very rare here given Texas’ otherwise strong homestead protections) and no pesky due process requirements. This naturally makes them the worst of both worlds for any (supposed) homeowner who gets crosswise with the petty local politicians. When my wife and I moved a couple of years ago, one item at the top of our personal checklist was “no HOA.”

    For a couple of real-life examples, see:

    http://blogcritics.org/homeowners-associations-are-out-of-control/

  74. @Patrick: Dave Nalle! Man, that takes me back. He was I think the very first person to give me money in exchange for my writing.

    He also makes great fonts.

  75. The reason Donald Sterling was defenestrated was to scare everyone into line, but particularly and especially to scare the left into line.

    Observe: Everyone is getting into line, but particularly and especially the left is getting into line.

  76. Eric, does your calculus about homeowners’ associations change if, as is the case in many places, you can’t buy a house without having to join one, and the terms are all pretty much the same – which removes the ability of the market to pressure them out of existence?

  77. >Observe: Everyone is getting into line, but particularly and especially the left is getting into line.

    Actually, one of the few heartening consequences of this mess is that your claim isn’t true. When Slate publishes an article exhorting its readers to take seriously the problem that Sterling was outed by illegal taping, you know that the left is having some serious internal dissension about this brouhaha.

    It will be interesting to see if Sterling sues the NBA over this. He probably has grounds, and the discovery results will be entertaining. If it turns out the tape was made as an extortion attempt (which, on the facts, seems likely) we might get an optimal outcome – Sterling in disgrace, the NBA badly disrupted, and a reaffirmed respect for privacy.

  78. > No monopoly on licit use of force, for one thing.

    You think they wouldn’t if they could?

    Or, alternately phrased – how would you feel about an HOA, in a world with no (otherwise) states, which demanded its residents sign away their right to use force?

  79. “Unfortunately, in some cases, the contracts are modified ex post facto.”

    Don’t you have to agree to let them modify it? (P.S. How do libertarians feel about that kind of thing, especially on a contract of adhesion?)

  80. @Random832:

    Do you have to agree to let them change the Constitution, or let Congress pass another law?

  81. “When Slate publishes an article exhorting its readers to take seriously the problem that Sterling was outed by illegal taping, you know that the left is having some serious internal dissension about this brouhaha.”

    And as we already observe, anyone vaguely left who calls for even the slightest modicum of common sense is being thrown into the cannibal pot by everyone lefter than them and everyone wishing to prove their lefter-than-them cred. And it ain’t just edgy teens on Tumblr.

    That’s okay. I’d rather have my enemies out in the open, rather than pretending to be my friends.

  82. @Patrick Maupin: By “have to agree” I meant you are required to agree to their ability to change it at will as a condition of being allowed to live there; not that they’re required to obtain your agreement or they can’t change the rules.

  83. @Random832:

    And by “Do you have to agree”, I mean that it is no different than any other form of government where the tyranny of the majority can rule. Except, of course that the majority ugliness comes out sooner and more often with a small group.

  84. >Observe: Everyone is getting into line, but particularly and especially the left is getting into line.

    esr on 2014-05-02 at 10:56:53 said:

    Actually, one of the few heartening consequences of this mess is that your claim isn’t true. When Slate publishes an article exhorting its readers to take seriously the problem that Sterling was outed by illegal taping, you know that the left is having some serious internal dissension about this brouhaha.

    Oh come on. The left has an ever more extreme line on race, which requires ever more extreme conformity, especially by leftists. The left does not have a line on taping.

    In due course the left will have a line on taping, but that time has not yet come. When it does come, I know which side you will be on.

  85. @Patrick Maupin
    > When my wife and I moved a couple of years ago, one item at the top of our personal checklist was “no HOA.”

    And that choice you made, Patrick, is the difference HOAs and government.

  86. >Or, alternately phrased – how would you feel about an HOA, in a world with no (otherwise) states, which demanded its residents sign away their right to use force?

    If customers think they’re getting value for that contract, I don’t see any reason a third party should prevent them. I think there will always be HOAs that don’t make this demand, so normal competitive pressures will apply.

  87. ME> it never was about Sterling nor Eich, it’s about conditioning the rest of us to reflexively attack anyone on the wrong side of the Overton Window.

    I just saw a story on Red Eye about a guy who tweeted that he thought Sterling had the right to say stupid things in private and was a victim of illegal recording, who was as a result fired from his job. I think that proves my point. If you don’t attack the politically incorrect, then you risk being politically incorrect yourself.

  88. “If it turns out the tape was made as an extortion attempt (which, on the facts, seems likely)”

    Stiviano’s lawyer says Sterling consented to and even requested the taping. I am somewhat surprised by this, but I don’t immediately disbelieve it. There is a ton of documentation on record which shows Sterling operating under the assumption that he can just say whatever he wants and get away with it. I also note that Sterling hasn’t brought suit against Stiviano for illegally taping conversations. Whoops.

    By the by, I figured out where Ken Burnside got this quote:

    1) Sterling was the first owner to hire a black GM. In the mid-80s. Kept that man (Elgin Baylor) on the job for 7 years. This was in an era where people were saying that “black men, no offense, just don’t have the capacity to handle front office jobs in a situation as fluid and complex as the NBA.”

    In 1987, Al Campanis went on Nightline and said he thought blacks “may not have some of the necessities to be a field manager or general manager” in baseball. At the time, he was the GM of the LA Dodgers (baseball, if you don’t follow sports). He was fired within a couple of days.

    So: the story was wrong about Elgin Baylor being the first black GM in basketball, it got the original comments wrong, and it misrepresents the severity of the reaction at the time. So it goes. I’m still curious as to where Ken got it.

  89. @Fluffy:

    When my wife and I moved a couple of years ago, one item at the top of our personal checklist was “no HOA.”

    And that choice you made, Patrick, is the difference HOAs and government.

    I’m pretty slow today, Jessica, but I’m just not seeing it. Plenty of people move from one city, state, or country to another for governmental reasons, such as lower taxation or a better-performing school district. An HOA, once set up, is essentially just another geographically based government that collects taxes and forces people to comply.

    If I want to live in the US, I may not be able to avoid living in a state or a county or a school district, but I can certainly choose which one of those I live in, and, as with an HOA, I can avoid living in a city altogether.

  90. Garrett on 2014-05-01 at 15:30:33 said:@Rich Rostrom: “damaged the value of the league”

    This is the same argument that busybodies in HOAs …

    Not even close to a good analogy. A pro sports league is a collective activity. Unlike competitors in other industries, the teams cannot function without each other. In normal operation, creation and sale of the league’s product is the joint action of two teams. While fans generally support one team, their interest in the games also depends on the other teams (the White Sox charge more for games against the Yankees and Red Sox than against the Rangers or Twins).

    A team owner or management which alienates the general public will diminish the revenue of all teams.

  91. If I want to live in the US, I may not be able to avoid living in a state or a county or a school district, but I can certainly choose which one of those I live in

    And this would be the difference. Even more to the point, what if you would rather not live under the jurisdiction of any State whatsoever? The whole idea of the social contract is strained to the say the least when you’re forced to pick a contract of adhesion, and even among the extant options your choice is limited. There are only so many abandoned naval observation posts.

  92. @Christopher Smith:

    Did you miss the fact that a city is a governmental unit, or was that just inconvenient to the argument that an HOA is completely different to a government?

  93. Did you miss the fact that a city is a governmental unit

    In the United States, at least, the city is only a “government” in the sense that it’s put under a more direct local management by the state; they’re created and can be abolished by the state, and the question of how many levels of indirection you have is a “zero-infinity” issue. You can get one less level of indirection by living outside city limits, but the state still exercises police power in the county. You can get *completely* away from an HOA by living elsewhere, but not from a government.

  94. I think the spam filter caught my most recent comment – is the name of a certain country on the horn of Africa often used in straw-man arguments against Libertarianism (which arguments I was comparing “live somewhere without such an HOA” to) filtered?

  95. @Christopher Smith:

    You’re close to my point, but still missing it.

    This sub-thread started with Jessica’s comment that “And that choice you made, Patrick, is the difference HOAs and government.” and I was addressing that.

    Like a city, the HOA is effectively also a sub-government of the state. Yes, in theory a city could be destroyed by the state, but so, in theory, could an HOA. (For example, at least in Texas, some abuses have gotten bad enough that various standard HOA clauses have been declared null and void by the legislature.)

    So, I’m still not seeing the difference between an HOA and the government.

  96. @Christopher Smith:

    To put it as plainly as possible — if you live in an HOA, and it is found out that you are not abiding by their rules, or if you are not paying tribute, they will use the power of the state to forcibly evict you from the HOA and take your property.

    The only thing they cannot (directly) do that a city can is to jail you.

    In other words, they are the landlord and you are the tenant, despite the fact that you supposedly own the property. It is easy to see this is true when you watch them raise the rent (dues) without limit — the power to tax really is the power to destroy. They are not taxing/destroying you directly, but they can certainly tax/destroy the utility to you of the property you thought you owned.

  97. Brendan Eich is a CEO, and CEO’s First Rule is “Don’t do things that embarrass the company. Think twice about doing things that would embarrass the company if they got out.” He got the consequences of his choices, just as Steve Jobs did (twice, if you count dying prematurely).

  98. As has been pointed out recently, adding EME support is something that perhaps a Mozilla CEO really ought to be ousted for.

  99. Christopher Smith on 2014-05-16 at 01:56:07 said:
    > As has been pointed out recently, adding EME support is something
    > that perhaps a Mozilla CEO really ought to be ousted for.

    WAS BRENDAN EICH DEFENESTRATED so that they could add Digital Rights Management to Firefox? “Eich stood firmly in the way of Mozilla incorporating DRM into Firefox. Now that he’s gone, and his technological authority with him, Mozilla immediately caved to Hollywood interests.”

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-go.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>