Should the Feds be Involved in Controlling Anti-Racial Free Speech?

Donald Sterling is the owner of a National Basketball Association (NBA) basketball team. He recently made anti-racial comments, which became public knowledge, whether intentional or not. The NBA is not a government organization.
The NBA barred Mr. Sterling from any personal future active participation in NBA activities. He was also fined $2.5 million. It should be noted that Mr. Sterling's team was not barred from the NBA. Since Mr. Sterling is the owner of the team and would have control of it, he will obviously have indirect future participation in NBA activities. This is further confirmed, if he pays the $2.5 million fine.
However, the above activities are details in the operation of a rivate business. Using his First Amendment rights, Mr. Sterling can say anything he desires. Government cannot control or penalize.
Even so, Mr. Sterling's comments could have broad negative sociological consequences. The issue may tend to propagate a strong public feeling against blacks, which is against the Constitution's anti-racial intent. An example of how such development could have a major effect on society's actions is illustrated in the anti-Semitism development in Germany prior to World War II. Hitler was able to use this to further inflame the German public, eventually leading to the Holocaust.
Because of the development of such dire consequences, the question again arises as to whether government should be involved in controlling such activities. Before replying to that question, it is also necessary to look at the reverse aspect, which is government promoting such activity as was used in Germany.
The conclusion must be that government should not be involved, in spite of its obvious importance. It is a sociologicl/cultural matter and must involve control only by the people, such as is now being done by the NBA with Mr. Sterling.