Let him who is not a racist cast the first stone

“Everyone makes judgments based on race. Everyone is a little bit racist, it’s true. So everyone stop being so PC [politically correct].”

—“Avenue Q” (a musical “satirizing the issues and anxieties associated with entering adulthood”). 2004 Tony Award winner.

Is there anyone who is not a racist, who has not made or laughed at ethnic jokes? Filipinos are among the most racist in the world. Listen to Filipinos make jokes against the Chinese, Indians (Bombay), Japanese, even Ilocanos.

Donald Sterling, owner of the basketball team Los Angeles Clippers, allegedly was “ranting and raving” against blacks. He was doing neither. He was jealous of Magic Johnson because he had a picture with his inamorata circulated on the internet. He was pleading with her:  All I ask is that you do not broadcast it on Instagram.

Fairness requires that one listen to the entire conversation between Sterling and his inamorata, rather than taking words out of context, before saying things against him. http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_wkuhmkt8/.

He says “There is nothing wrong with minorities. They are fabulous.” She asks if he does not like blacks (a stupid question since she herself is black and Mexican). He responds that he loves black people. If Sterling hates blacks, why is he consorting (sleeping?) with one? Why is the majority of his team composed of blacks?

As they say in Spanish “No hay mas loco que el loco viejo enamorarse.” (There is no bigger fool than a foolish old man who falls in love.)

The sanctions imposed on Sterling without due process of law by the NBA are terribly out of proportion to the alleged offense—US$2.5 million dollar fine, banned for life from the NBA, prevented from managing his team, and recommending a forced sale of his team.

Freedom for the thought that we hate

Before condemning Sterling, people should hearken to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the greatest American jurists. In United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), Holmes dissented: “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” A majority of the Supreme Court rejected an alien’s naturalization application for saying she would not "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Schwimmer was overturned by the Supreme Court in Girouard v. United States, 328 U.S. 61 (1946), thus Holmes’s opinion prevailed.

In Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), Holmes dissented saying: “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. . . .  I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.” The Supreme Court majority convicted the defendants for advocating curtailment of production of things necessary for the war against Germany.

In Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), Holmes said: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.” The Supreme Court convicted the defendants for causing insubordination in the military.

I will defend your right to say it

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”—Attributed to Voltaire but reportedly said by his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

If Sterling does not fight back, the sanctions against him could become a precedent. Imagine what would happen to anyone alleged to be a racist. If the person is a businessman, he could lose his business. If the person is a professional, he could lose his license. If he is an employee, he could be fired. Without due process of law!

(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He specializes in immigration law and criminal defense. Office: 800 Bethel St., Suite 402, Honolulu, HI 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Websites:  www.MilitaryandCriminalLaw.com. He is from Laoag City and Magsingal, Ilocos Sur. He served as an Immigration Officer. He is co-author of “Immigration Law Service, 1^st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for immigration officers and lawyers. Listen to the most funny, interesting, and useful radio program in Hawaii on KNDI at 1270 AM dial every Thursday at 7:30 a.m. This article is a general overview of the subject matter discussed and is not intended as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is established between the writer and readers relying upon and/or acting pursuant to the contents of this article.)