Dear Deadspin,

Might want to consult a dictionary on that one.

Let's say a high school principal says that he doesn't want black people in his classrooms. We'd all agree that he should be fired and never work in a school again, right? So why does that mean that a student saying the same thing should get the same punishment?

My short-legged, long-torso'd, long-armed, crazy flexible 8th grade self says otherwise.

I was a sit and reach superstar. Broke the school record. Even bested the girls's record, which was higher than the boy's at the time.

Thinking Sterling is a victim is ridiculous. If you put that ridiculous belief out to the world, as Olin did, be ready for blowback.

Calling a rapist a victim is pretty fucking controversial. Where the hell do you live?

He owns a franchise, which means he's subject to certain rules and penalties, which he has agreed to. He can be fined $2.5m for the same reason that Mark Cuban can be fined $500,000 for criticizing the referees.

His lawyer might contest it, but the fact that they're not doing anything about it seems to indicate that he did offer consent. It's irrelevant to the NBA and its punishment, though.

Person commits a wrong. Person suffers proportionate consequences. Outsider calls person a victim for having to suffer those consequences.

You don't see a difference between a player being charged with something like assault and an NBA team owner saying he doesn't want black people at his games?

The recording was made not only with his consent and knowledge, but by his instruction. He asked his girlfriend to record what he said because he's forgetful. She has hundreds of hours of recordings.

We don't know how the recording got out, but Sterling asked his girlfriend to record him, so no laws were being broken.

Leave what up to a court of law? Sterling is a free man and has no legal ramifications coming. There were no laws broken here.

Though to be honest I'm glad his girlfriend did it even if it was illegal.

It's true. You can hate whoever you want to hate. But when a recording of you hating groups of people, including those making you rich, they have the right to stop working for you. And your employer has the right to punish you.

Sterling was not only recorded with his knowledge, but he was the one who instructed his girlfriend to record him. Said it was because he was forgetful. She has hundreds of hours of recordings.

How is calling Sterling a victim level-headed? It's like saying a rapist or a murderer is a victim because they have to go to jail.

Should they? Up for debate. Can they? Absolutely.

It could be viewed as censorship, I guess. Doesn't mean they can't do it.