People Need to Learn What the First Amendment Actually Says

In the wake of Donald Sterling's racist remarks, a number of people have alluded to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and have been asking how Sterling could be disciplined even though his freedom of speech is guaranteed by said Constitution.

Here's the First Amendment. The parts concerned with free speech are in bold and underlined...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

That's all the First Amendment does. It prohibits the government from making laws limiting your freedom of speech. The Constitution doesn't give you immunity from people reacting to your opinions. It certainly doesn't protect you from being fired or punished by an employer. You have freedom of speech, but your speech does not have freedom of consequences.

When an NBA coach criticizes officials, the NBA typically fines him. That's not a violation of the First Amendment. The NBA has every right to do that.

If you walked up to your boss and said "Sit on it and rotate," you could be punished for that.

If a waiter or waitress swears at a customer, they can be punished for it.

If a school teacher teaches their students that black people aren't as evolved as whites, they could and should be fired for that. They can't be arrested for it, but the school (whether it's public or private) has the right to dismiss the teacher.

And if the owner of an NBA team says racist things that are detrimental to the league, even if it's in the privacy of his own house, he can be banned and fined. The First Amendment guarantees he won't be arrested or prosecuted for what he said. It does not guarantee that his speech won't result in consequences.

So people, before you start citing Amendments, please learn what they mean. And be grateful that the First Amendment protects you from being arrested for incorrectly citing the First Amendment. It does not protect you from me calling you a bonehead.

Mark Cuban More Worried About Slippery Slopes Than Racist Owners

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (whose name is frequently preceded by the description "outspoken") finally made his opinion on LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling (whose name shall henceforth be preceded by the description "racist" or "bigoted") public. And while Cuban found Sterling's thoughts "abhorrent," Cuban was also worried about going down a "slippery slope." He argued that "If we start trying to legislate morality, we've got much bigger problems."

And while I agree with that sentiment, this isn't a case of legislating morality. Donald Sterling doesn't just hold an unpopular opinion. It's not really an opinion at all.

People aren't advocating for the removal of Donald Sterling because of an opinion on abortion, or Obamacare, or because he denies climate change, or because he wants to ban assault weapons. People want Sterling out, not because of his beliefs and morals, but because of who he is and what he's decided to be.

Being a racist isn't a moral opinion. It's a decision to not view other human beings as human beings. That's not a moral issue to be judged or "legislated," to use Cuban's term. People don't want Sterling to go because of his opinions, they want him gone because of the decisions he has made to be a racist. He has chosen to be racist.

Mark Cuban was born to Jewish parents. His brother Brian is a lawyer who has made legal efforts to compel Facebook to ban Holocaust denying Facebook groups. What if an NBA owner were recorded saying that the Holocaust wasn't real and that Jews run the media? What if an NBA owner were recorded praising Adolf Hitler, and had a copy of Mein Kampf and other Nazi literature and paraphernalia gloriously displayed in his private study? Is viewing Jews as subhuman a moral opinion? Or is it a choice?

Antisemitism isn't a moral opinion to be disagreed with nor is any form of racial prejudice. The person makes the choice to be so utterly ignorant and to dehumanize other human beings.

I can argue with someone who has a differing opinion from mine. And maybe their opinion will change, maybe mine will change, maybe not. Can you argue with a racist? Can you sway what a racist has decided to think about black people or Jews? Will they be able to convince you that black men shouldn't date white women, and that there was no Holocaust? You wouldn't be arguing an opinion, you'd be arguing a decision.

My saying "Magic Johnson is the best LA Laker since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar" is an opinion. Saying "You shouldn't be seen in public with Magic Johnson because he's black," is NOT a moral opinion, it's a decision to see Magic Johnson as less than human.

We're all human beings. That's a fact, not an opinion. Disagreeing with that fact that we're all human is also not an opinion, it's a decision.

So, Mr. Cuban, Mr. Outspoken, you are wrong here. If Donald Sterling is removed it won't be because of his morals. It will be because of his decisions. Sterling made, makes, and will continue to make the decision to view black people as something not quite human. And that doesn't belong in the ownership ranks of the NBA or any sport.

One Year Later, the Red Sox-Dodgers Deal Still a Mistake for LA

The Dodgers are the best team in baseball right now. It's almost a year since they acquired Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Josh Beckett from the Red Sox. Both the Red Sox and Dodgers have improved dramatically since that deal. The Sox lead their division, the Dodgers have played .800+ baseball their last 50 games. So both teams made a good deal. Right?

No.

Last year's colossal salary dump was good for the Red Sox. It gave the team freedom to spend on role players, and it banished Josh Beckett from the clubhouse. For the Dodgers, they took on massive payroll and what have they gotten from it? Beckett has been a bust. Carl Crawford has hit 5 homeruns this season. He's hitting .291 and has stolen 11 bases. He's back to being a decent player, but hardly worth the $20 million he gets paid. He's knocked in 21 runs. I know he's a leadoff hitter in the NL, but 21 RBI? Really?

Adrian Gonzalez is doing well. He leads the Dodgers in average (.296), homeruns (16), and RBI (77). He leads these categories because Hanley Ramirez (.348 BA), and Yasiel Puig (.346) don't have as many at-bats.

Before Puig burst from his chrysalis in June and began his methodical campaign of destruction in the National League, the Dodgers were 23-32. They were 13-13 in April, despite Adrian Gonzalez's 18 RBI and .398 OBP that month. They were 10-17 in May despite Gonzalez's 22 RBI, 5 HRs, and .886 OPS.

In other words, Adrian Gonzalez, even when hitting well, wasn't enough to win. The team needed Puig. And pitching. And Hanley Ramirez. And pitching. Pitching is why this team has won as many games as it has.

Clayton Kershaw is 12-7 with a 1.72 ERA. He's thrown 10 straight Quality Starts, dating back to late June. 22 Quality Starts in total.

Supporting him are Zach Greinke (12-3, 2.91 ERA, 9-1 in his last 10 decisions) and Hyun-Jin Ryu (12-4, 2.95 ERA). As a team the Dodgers have 71 Quality Starts. Their team ERA since the All-Star break is 2.25, best in the Majors. And in August it's 2.05. They've converted 93% of save opportunities since the All-Star break. That's why their winning.

How unimportant is Adrian Gonzalez to the Dodgers' success? August has been his worst month of the season (.317 OBP, .390 SLG, .707 OPS, 1 HR, 12 RBI, 4 walks, 13 strikeouts). The Dodgers are 17-3 in August. Gonzalez did well in April and May and the team lost. He's slowed down in August as his team has sped up. He's just not that important to them.

Then again, Carl Crawford is doing well in August (.380 OBP, .791 OPS), so maybe he's the reason the Dodgers are kicking so much ass.

Or maybe it's Kershaw (1.23 ERA in August). Puig (.886 OPS in August). Greinke (4-0, 0.96 ERA in August), Ryu (3-1, 2.03 ERA in August), and the rest of the Dodgers who were NOT acquired in last year's mega-trade.

On the field, that deal didn't hurt them. Both Gonzalez and Crawford have certainly helped, albeit at a ghastly price. The deal hasn't helped them that much, though. And certainly not as much as other deals they've made. Here are the transactions that have mad the difference for the Dodgers:

June 2006: Drafting Clayton Kershaw
June 2012: Signing Yasiel Puig as an amateur free agent (making 29 GMs kick themselves)
July 2012: Trading with the Marlins for Hanley Ramirez
December 2012: Purchasing the contract of Hyun-Jin Ryu from South Korean team Hanwah
December 2012: Signing Zach Greinke as a free agent

So the Dodgers did make some important deals in 2012. The Gonzalez-Crawford-Beckett deal was perhaps 5th or 6th most important on that list. But they had Gonzalez and Crawford when they sucked in April and May. It wasn't until Puig emerged, Ramirez got healthy, and the pitchers gelled that the team started winning. Gonzalez and Crawford have marginally helped in that winning, but the Dodgers could have acquired marginal contributors for much less than the $42 million those two cost per season.

The addition of Gonzalez and Crawford has been meaningless to the Dodgers' success.

So in conclusion, last year's deal between the Red Sox and Dodgers was still, in and of itself, a bad deal for the Dodgers. It only seems good now because of the other deals the Dodgers made. Those deals are why they are as red hot (or blue hot) as they are.