BTW, just to reiterate my previous point.... PRECEDENT MATTERS. It's ALWAYS used in determining punishment and if you want to talk about someone having standing to act legally, suspending someone for some random amount that is wholly outside of established precedent is EXACTLY how you bring on legal action. Even if the league tried to lay a heavy hand here, JR and the Player's Union would get it reduced in arbitration or in court.
Jermaine O'neal was able to get his suspension reduced form 25 games to 15 games FOR FIGHTING FANS due to a District Court determining the punishment "excessive". Don't think for a second that the same wouldn't happen if you just randomly throw the book at one guy. Anyone who has ever been in a position of disciplining employees knows, precedent matters and you can't just randomly treat two employees differently without making yourself legally vulnerable.
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/notebook-oneals-suspension-reduced/
BTW, this applies with Olynyk as well. The league can't look at either case emotionally. I think they'll review the play and if they determine it to be "unnecessary and excessive" they'll award a Flagrant 2 and have Olynyk sit the first game next year.
For everyone arguing one way or the other about punishment of either guy, keep precedent in mind. Many here want Olynyk hammered (and some even Smith) well beyond normal punishment but you can't have unpredictable, uneven, arbitrary punishment without bringing competitive balance into question. The owners, coaches, players need to know that punishment will be meted out with an even hand.