Donald Sterling Banned for Life

[jbishop15]

Well then I'm glad we're all perfect here and have no concerns that our spoken or written words shared with friends or family in private would ever be used against you to get you fired from your job or land you in jail.

That is a huge, huge leap. It couldn't land him in jail; that's exactly what the first bloody amendment is for. It protects you from prosecution, not consequences of your words.

Written words are fair game. The moment you put it down on paper or electronically or whatever it becomes public. Speaking them out loud requires proof, and or else it's hearsay. I think its a good thing someone exposed Donald Sterling for who he is. It means he's not going to be able to spread his views via his ownership of an NBA team.

I get where you are coming from, but it's a logical fallacy to think that this will set a precedent that will lead to anything more.

[whatwoodtigerdo]

Do people get banned from this site? Seems like a good subject to follow to find out. Haha.

[jamo]

Do people get banned from this site? Seems like a good subject to follow to find out. Haha.

Don't test us... :whistle:

[Shorty]

Do people get banned from this site? Seems like a good subject to follow to find out. Haha.

They do.

But unfortunately not for saying "going forward" under any circumstances,  "I personally believe", "defiantly" instead of definitely, "loose" instead of lose and "use to" instead of used to.

I think we may have had a couple who have been unable to self regulate to the point where they were given a holiday.

People defending racism on the grounds of "free speech" or fear of big brother may be a different level, though.

I try to refrain from engaing in arguments that pertain to religion or hunting. I've probably deserved a red card or two, but have certainly been shown a few yellow ones .

Racism is something else.

[saevel25]

Well then I'm glad we're all perfect here and have no concerns that our spoken or written words shared with friends or family in private would ever be used against you to get you fired from your job or land you in jail.

Ok I'll retract my statement a bit there. I do believe that people have a right to their privacy. Yet, I am not sure the invasion of privacy in this situation, if their was any, rewards any sort of legal action.

If it was a set up, then was it private to begin with. I put it this way. If two drug dealers are talking about setting up a meeting to sell drugs. Is it a private conversation if the police have the building wire taped? One might believe they have privacy but that might just be an illusion.

Though I am not sure if Stirling is protected under any sort of whistle blower laws.

[inthehole]

He's an 80 year old billionaire with 25 year old girlfriends.    Based on his comments, he's lost his mind ... but If he hasn't, he'll lick his wounds and move on, away from the NBA quietly and enjoy the last couple decent years of his life.    Guys like this seldom go out quietly however, I doubt we've heard the last of this from him ...

[JetFan1983]

Donald Sterling kind of gave the league no choice in the actions they took against him IMO. What's worse, spending a few million dollars on legal fees over the next few years or the Clippers franchise imploding in value from 800 million to like 100 million? (ballpark guess)

Take the morality out of it, that would hurt everyone's wallet in the NBA.

The fallout of keeping him around could have been much worse than I think people are giving credit for. Everyone demanding trades, Doc resigning, fans boycotting.... I mean, the list is endless. Call me crazy, but this is the scenario I saw playing out if these actions by the commissioner weren't taken.

Legal fees now with Sterling are a drop in the bucket compared to the alternative, even if the NBA loses the case (which I'm not sure what would entail exactly). Plus, now they can bring in someone who's been properly vetted to take over Clippers ownership. Damage control with this new string of commercials are clearly well underway, and I think win or lose the NBA can actually turn this into a huge financial positive by taking this course of action against Mr.Sterling.

Look, the guy screwed up royally. It's fair to defend his ownership right and all, but keeping him around runs the risk of the league losing hundred of millions of dollars in the long term, if not billions, who knows.

Simply put, a guy who thinks he's a 21st century plantation owner cannot own an NBA team. Pandora's box got opened and you can't close it again, no matter who, what or how it opened IMO. The NBA is more than financially equipped to battle Sterling in the court room.

So while this is first and foremost a morality issue/race issue, whatever we want to call it.... financially, there was really no other choice here. Man, did you guys see the looks on every current and past players' face when interviewed about this story? There was clear anger, betrayal, and hurt in a lot of their eyes. And rightly so, guys, seriously. The NBAPA was ready to go to the mattresses, and the NBA just successfully avoided that by banning Donald Sterling for life and beginning the process of taking the Clippers away from him.

Certainly the legal side of this story is just getting started, and I'm sure I'll learn something about the court system in the way this all plays out. I'm legitimately interested in seeing what Donald Sterling is planning on doing here.

[boogielicious]

Sterling stands to make hundreds of millions from the sale, so there is no feeling sorry for him.  If he does sue, much more will come out which may cause further reputation damage and even financial damage to him.  He is a boil on the neck of the NBA right now and is damaging the product.  They have every right by their own bi-law to remove him.

As for the private conversation points, it is disheartening that nothing is private anymore.  But we have gone way past that when we find it acceptable for the media to get leaked grand jury testimony and publish it or even worse, they hail as a hero someone who leaks NSA information.  We already have laws against these items, but there never seems to be any repercussions.

[newtogolf]

For the record, I am not defending Sterling.  I've read enough about him to know he is a racist and not someone I'd ever defend.  That said, this action establishes a precedent and resets what one's expectations can be with regards to private and personal conversations.

[David in FL]

For the record, I am not defending Sterling.  I've read enough about him to know he is a racist and not someone I'd ever defend.

Exactly.  He's a douche.....

That said, this action establishes a precedent and resets what one's expectations can be with regards to private and personal conversations.

Moreover, it seems that it sets a precedent for the NBA's response to articulated racism or bigotry.

Any business/HR professional, or attorney will tell you that organizations need to be very consistent in how they treat like situations or they have tremendous exposure.  All eyes will be on the NBA (Sterling will make sure of it) to see what their reaction will be if another owner/coach/player (regardless of race) makes an intemperate comment that is unsuspectingly caught on tape.

[MS256]

If the votes cast by the other owners aren't guaranteed to remain secret I can't see any of them not voting to force Sterling to sell.

If he decides to fight the sale he could certainly at least keep it tied up in court for a long time. That, of course, would be a stupid business move because if the league used all of the tools at their disposal, like declaring all of his players free agents, the current value of the team would take a nosedive.

Whether Sterling is stupid enough to fight it and risk having the team value hit rock bottom we'll just have to see.

The smart move for him would be to sell the team today (since yesterday isn't possible) and disappear from the public.

Aside note: It was humorous listening to some completely off base First Amendment arguments on some of the TV and radio shows yesterday from people on both sides of the argument.

(Good thing some people aren't lawyers and judges, and some that are shouldn't be).

[newtogolf]

Any business/HR professional, or attorney will tell you that organizations need to be very consistent in how they treat like situations or they have tremendous exposure.  All eyes will be on the NBA (Sterling will make sure of it) to see what their reaction will be if another owner/coach/player (regardless of race) makes an intemperate comment that is unsuspectingly caught on tape.

Which is why I mentioned Jay Z wearing a racist medallion.

I also wonder how this precedent will affect private business.  Can an angry wife or girlfriend record you ranting about your boss and then send the recording to your boss to get you fired?  How about someone recording a bunch of guys talking about a wild weekend in Vegas where some illegal activities might have gone down and the recording of individuals self incriminating themselves is sent to the police and their jobs?

It seems Sterling had a history of making semi-racist statements with regards to his real estate empire that the NBA chose not to act on in the past but they do take action based on an illegally recorded (California is a two party consent state) private and personal conversation and hit him with a lifetime ban.  I don't see how this can hold up in court if Sterling decides to fight it.  It would likely go to the Supreme Court as it has widespread implications.

[MS256]

I also wonder how this precedent will affect private business.  Can an angry wife or girlfriend record you ranting about your boss and then send the recording to your boss to get you fired?  How about someone recording a bunch of guys talking about a wild weekend in Vegas where some illegal activities might have gone down and the recording of individuals self incriminating themselves is sent to the police and their jobs?

Yes, and yes.

The person making an illegal recording could face misdemeanor charges but a boss can certainly fire an employee for what they said or did.

Free speech means you can say what to want (with a few exceptions like the often used "Fire in a theatre") without being prosecuted for it. It doesn't mean a boss can't fire you, or refuse to hire you, for what you say.

People are fired and not hired all the time for what they said or did once it is known to the boss. In extreme cases it could even be irresponsible to not fire the person.

It's not the boss' fault or problem that the information was obtained illegally but once they know about it they have a responsibility to protect the business, other employees, and customers.

[iacas]

First thing, private conversations are no longer private when they are recorded. Sorry in this day in age when you have social media, unless you are certain you are not being recorded there is no such thing as a private conversation.

Bullshit. How about this, Matt: without your knowledge, I'm gonna bug your apartment and then use any comments you make to get you fired from your job?

Heck, I'll video tape you doing whatever you do when you think you have your privacy too, because that's just a recording as well, right?

WTH are you smoking? Who cares what the intent was? It was a PRIVATE conversation. This seems to have massive privacy concerns and issues.

I don't really care if she was coerced or paid. Heck people have been wearing wiring taps for years in efforts of getting information out of people to prosecute them. This is just NBA prosecution. Since they have their own form of laws and justice, I see no problem with this.

Wire taps, etc. require due process.

Well then I'm glad we're all perfect here and have no concerns that our spoken or written words shared with friends or family in private would ever be used against you to get you fired from your job or land you in jail.

Seriously.

---

Does the guy deserve whatever is coming to him? Almost certainly he absolutely does. But that doesn't mean the ends justify the means. It's two separate discussions. Criminals who clearly committed crimes walk free all the time because of "technicalities," but start letting those technicalities slip and our freedoms erode, and more innocent people are sent to jail, executed, etc. as well.

[Spyder]

The really messed up part is that California is a 2-party consent state as well in terms of recording conversations. Here in Ohio, only one party needs to be aware, so you can basically record anyone by law. I'm not sure how Sterling being recorded is going to play out, but he clearly wouldn't consent to those comments being recorded... right? Of course, I think I read a report that Sterling requested "on many occasions" that he be recorded when talking as he has mental lapses and memory issues, so he would need to refer to the recordings to conduct daily personal and business operations. Sounds like bs, but it could hold up as a result.

[MS256]

The really messed up part is that California is a 2-party consent state as well in terms of recording conversations. Here in Ohio, only one party needs to be aware, so you can basically record anyone by law. I'm not sure how Sterling being recorded is going to play out, but he clearly wouldn't consent to those comments being recorded... right? Of course, I think I read a report that Sterling requested "on many occasions" that he be recorded when talking as he has mental lapses and memory issues, so he would need to refer to the recordings to conduct daily personal and business operations. Sounds like bs, but it could hold up as a result.

The liability for violating the 2-party consent law is on the person that violated it, not the league for acting on the information.

If I lived in a 2-party consent state and went to the golf course where I work and cursed or made racial slurs to the players on the course (or extreme case hit one of them?), and one of them recorded me, I would certainly be fired (and rightly so).

It would be irresponsible for the course to not fire me once they had the information, even though it was obtained illegally.

[14ledo81]

I am not defending Sterling or his view points.  My comments are solely regarding the privacy issue.

I know I have said things in the heat of the moment about many different people (boss, friends, etc..) that I did not really mean, or mean as strongly as was spoken.  If someone recorded me (when I though it was private), and used it against me, I would be extremely upseet.

[14ledo81]

The liability for violating the 2-party consent law is on the person that violated it, not the league for acting on the information.

If I lived in a 2-party consent state and went to the golf course where I work and cursed or made racial slurs to the players on the course (or extreme case hit one of them?), and one of them recorded me, I would certainly be fired (and rightly so).

It would be irresponsible for the course to not fire me once they had the information, even though it was obtained illegally.

I agree with your view point on this.  In a court case though, don't they throw out illegally obtained information?