Donald Sterling up to his old tricks

[Hadlowe]

Why is she a gold digger again? Maybe I missed something. Seems to me she was just sick of his despicable behaviour. So what if she wanted to ruin his public image - he deserves it.

Because history is not replete with stories of attractive 26 year olds carrying on lengthy affairs with septuagenarians because they find them witty and engaging.

I agree that Sterling deserves everything that is coming to him. Unfortunately, what is coming to him is very likely a ten figure payout.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Bringing the racism to light was a good thing. Had it been done outside the context of an ugly lawsuit between a jilted wife and a former mistress, it would have been better.

It would have been better, without question, but the fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it doesn't count; it doesn't invalidate the truth of the situation.

However, the right to privacy is still an important part of the fabric of society. If you have to sacrifice privacy to uphold the 14th amendment, so be it, but you can't wish away the cost just because the benefit is greater.

You have the right to privacy, as it pertains to the government. You don't have the "right" to privacy, as it pertains to your neighbor, or your mistress. Sterling has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but his rights were not violated. Stiviano didn't eavesdrop on him; if you believe her claims (and I have no reason not to), she recorded their conversations with his knowledge and consent. She didn't violate his privacy: it's not, substantively, any different from if you took naked pictures of your partner, and then posted them on the internet after you broke up. It's not a "rights" issue; if she had written a "tell-all" book, instead of emailing the conversation to TMZ, he wouldn't get to cry "rights." How is this any different?

 

[Uncia03]

What is going to make this ugly are the rumors already popping up that Sterling will fight this. I applaud Silver and the NBA for their swift actions but if Sterling makes a mess out of this which drags on for months or even years, the Clippers as we know them might get dismantled. I don't see Doc returning and see players wanting to force their way out if Sterling is still technically the owner this summer.

If I was Doc or a Clippers player, I wouldn't want to play/coach in LA next year if Sterling still owns the team and is fighting against punishment handed out by the league.

My guess is that is what is going to be communicated to Adam Silver and the other owners. If Sterling is still the owner of the team come next year, they should expect the boycotting of games.
I don't see that happening as I believe that the owners will actually act quickly and decisively (in a timeframe that is appropriate to these sort of situations) to avoid harming the league to that degree.

I think they will have him out as owner fairly quickly, but then transitioning to a new owership group will probably take a lot longer since there won't be the pressure to instill a new group as there is to get rid of the existing one.
And unless Sterling can call in a lot of favors or has leverage on owners, I can't imagine him surviving a vote, especially if it's taken anytime in the near future with the emotions and sentiment that currently exist. And if he doesn't survive a vote, I don't know what sort of legal recourse he has.

 

[Kingster]

Don't get me wrong I think the NBA will be better off without Donald Sterling but count me among those that are surprised at the furor over this taped conversation.

Donald Sterling drove black and latino families out of their homes and made no secret about why and everyone in power in the NBA looked the other way or ignored it completely.

Donald Sterling was a consistently terrible owner whose cheapskate ways kept the Clippers as perennial doormats for decades. He even managed to pair his racism and skinflint nature when he said of Danny Manning's contract offer, "that's a lot of money for a poor, black kid".

Then he tells his mistress in a private conversation that he doesn't want her hanging around publicly with black men because his rich, old, white buddies wouldn't like it.

That's the straw that broke the camel's back? Really? You can't tell me there wasn't proof before - the man paid a multimillion dollar settlement for discrimination related to forcing minorities out of his buildings. Yeah, what he said on tape was awful and close-minded. But what he actually DID to people in the not so distant past was far worse IMO and no one in the NBA held his feet to the fire for it.

I actually think Cuban is taking the right approach to saying that you can't forcibly divest someone of property because of something they said in private, no matter how repugnant it is. If this is the incident that gets Sterling out of the league then fine, it's a good thing overall but he should have been pushed out years ago for more substantial reasons.

"I think you've got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It's a very, very slippery slope." - M. Cuban

I agree with this. And I agree with what Cuban said. Essentially, the NBA is taking away Sterling's franchise because of what he said behind closed doors. Silver said he did not look at past actions; therefore, it wasn't a straw at all. Therefore, all the other previous acts were not taken into account, presumably because the NBA didn't want to account for their non-response to the previous acts. Therefore, this is a stand-alone situation in which Sterling said a comment offensive to most of society in his home and now he loses his franchise because of it. Maybe it's because I'm sick and tired of ther over-the-top political correctness of this society, which is just a euphemism for societal tyranny, but I think the punishment of the league is disproportional to Sterling's act. I'll let the courts figure out if the punishment should stand.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

"I think you've got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It's a very, very slippery slope." - M. Cuban

You mean Mark Cuban wants to avoid setting a precedent where an owner could be removed for saying something stupid? Imagine that!

I agree with this. And I agree with what Cuban said. Essentially, the NBA is taking away Sterling's franchise because of what he said behind closed doors. Silver said he did not look at past actions; therefore, it wasn't a straw at all. Therefore, all the other previous acts were not taken into account, presumably because the NBA didn't want to account for their non-response to the previous acts.

You're going to have to explain to me exactly why Adam Silver should be held accountable for what David Stern let slide?

Therefore, this is a stand-alone situation in which Silver said a comment offensive to most of society in his home and now he loses his franchise because of it. Maybe it's because I'm sick and tired of ther over-the-top political correctness of this society, which is just a euphemism for societal tyranny...

Intolerance of racism is not "over-the-top political correctness." It's simply "correctness."

... but I think the punishment of the league is disproportional to Sterling's act. I'll let the courts figure out if the punishment should stand.

If twenty-three other owners vote him out, I doubt he can even take it to court.

 

[Hadlowe]

It would have been better, without question, but the fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it doesn't count; it doesn't invalidate the truth of the situation.

You have the right to privacy, as it pertains to the government. You don't have the "right" to privacy, as it pertains to your neighbor, or your mistress. Sterling has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but his rights were not violated. Stiviano didn't eavesdrop on him; if you believe her claims (and I have no reason not to), she recorded their conversations with his knowledge and consent. She didn't violate his privacy: it's not, substantively, any different from if you took naked pictures of your partner, and then posted them on the internet after you broke up. It's not a "rights" issue; if she had written a "tell-all" book, instead of emailing the conversation to TMZ, he wouldn't get to cry "rights." How is this any different?

Absolutely you do have that right against a breach of privacy by a neighbor or a mistress. I can't speak to California law on the subject, but public dissemination of material meant to be private is certainly actionable in most jurisdictions.

 

[uolj]

Essentially, the NBA is taking away Sterling's franchise because of what he said behind closed doors.

But is that really "essentially" what it is? I think they're taking away his franchise because what he said behind closed doors has the effect of hurting the league and one of their rules is, if you hurt the league then we can kick you out of it.

The fact that players considered boycotting and that sponsors actually did pull out of deals with the Clippers makes it clear that Sterling wasn't just suspended for what he said, but how what he said affects the league. Sucks for him that his private comments were made public, but once they're out there they have an effect and that effect can be considered for what it does to the league.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Absolutely you do have that right against a breach of privacy by a neighbor or a mistress. I can't speak to California law on the subject, but public dissemination of material meant to be private is certainly actionable in most jurisdictions.

I find the veracity of this statement to be highly questionable. If this were true, YouTube would have been shut down years ago.

 

[uolj]

I find the veracity of this statement to be highly questionable. If this were true, YouTube would have been shut down years ago.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

 

[funkykingston]

I disagree, one hundred percent.

In the first place, as I stated before, we don't actually know that he was recorded without his knowledge or consent. It's probably safe to say that the recording was released without his consent, but that's not illegal. In the second place, since it's not being admitted as evidence in a criminal or civil suit, it doesn't really matter if it was private. That's not any more illegal than your cousin catching you acting like a dumbass at the family reunion, and posting it on YouTube.

And, thirdly, now that it has been made public, just as sure as Donald Sterling has a "right" to be a racist in private, all of the Clippers' sponsors have the right to say, "Well, I don't want to be associated with a known racist," and take their money away. And, when you start to have sponsorship withdrawing money, the other owners have to wake up and pay attention. They have to start asking themselves, "Well, if I don't vote Sterling out, could that happen to me?" It is apparently in the league's constitution that the BOG can vote him out with seventy-five percent of ownership. I fully expect for these rich old guys to look at the potential ad money leaving their pockets, and decide that that supersedes Donald Sterling's right to be a prick.

CarMax, Virgin America, Chumash Casino, Mercedes-Benz, all gone. State Farm, Yokohama Tire, Kia America, Red Bull, Lumber Liquidators, suspending sponsorship. You don't think the other owners are going to look at that and get him out of there?

And I think that's the reality of the situation. There was enough of a firestorm in the media that big dollar sponsors pulled out and I think that spurred this decision as much as Sterlings actual comments. He's been a proven racist for years (and possibly the worst owner in professional sports for decades) but it seems like until the league faced the prospect of losing money that they finally tried to push him out.

If Sterling had made these comments publicly I don't think I'd be hung up on this at all. But there's still no clarification on why he was being recorded, if he knew or who leaked the audio. But to me the line between public and private is being continually blurred. I can't be upset at the NSA recording US citizens and then turn around and be happy that Sterling is being ousted for things he was recorded saying. Not without more of an idea of why the recording was made and whether he consented.

I don't ever want to be aligned with a slime ball like Sterling, but I do think if I'm going to be outraged at violations of privacy it has to be across the board and not just for people I like, suspending it for people I don't.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

But is that really "essentially" what it is? I think they're taking away his franchise because what he said behind closed doors has the effect of hurting the league and one of their rules is, if you hurt the league then we can kick you out of it.

Exactly. For all we know, the real reason that Sterling is having his franchise "taken" from him is because the other owners are worried about his stupidity costing them money.

The fact that players considered boycotting and that sponsors actually did pull out of deals with the Clippers makes it clear that Sterling wasn't just suspended for what he said, but how what he said affects the league. Sucks for him that his private comments were made public, but once they're out there they have an effect and that effect can be considered for what it does to the league.

To take it further than that, CarMax, Virgin America, Mercedes-Benz USA, et al., have the right to pull their ad dollars for any reason. If they make it known that they're doing if because they don't want to be associated with a known racist, and and urge the other owners to remove Sterling or risk them and others pulling their money as well, then the other owners would only be looking out for their own best interests.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

That document makes no mention of if a conversation, which was consensually recorded, becomes subsequently distributed without consent. As far as has been reported, the conversation was recorded with Sterling's knowledge and consent, which means Stiviano didn't break the law.

 

[uolj]

That document makes no mention of if a conversation, which was consensually recorded, becomes subsequently distributed without consent. As far as has been reported, the conversation was recorded with Sterling's knowledge and consent, which means Stiviano didn't break the law.

I was aware that you had mentioned reports that it was consensually recorded (although I haven't seen that myself). But I was more referring to the general idea that there is a legal right to keep private conversations private. True, the particular link I gave to refers to keeping private conversations from being recorded. There are other laws that talk about disseminating private facts (http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts). I'm not saying that Stiviano broke the law in this instance, just that the idea that there is a legal right to keep certain things private isn't necessarily farfetched.

 

[Kingster]

You mean Mark Cuban wants to avoid setting a precedent where an owner could be removed for saying something stupid? Imagine that!

You're going to have to explain to me exactly why Adam Silver should be held accountable for what David Stern let slide?

Intolerance of racism is not "over-the-top political correctness." It's simply "correctness."

If twenty-three other owners vote him out, I doubt he can even take it to court.

I don't like the fact that this action encourages the surreptitious recording of persons in their home. So what's next? Recording our every move in our house to make sure we don't say racist statements or other statements that others find offensive? Think about the paparazzi, throw in some high tech recording devices, add a dash of leakage to the world wide web, and what have you got? Fricken scary, that's what. Freedom of speach and the sanctity of the home and privacy trumps racist comments to me every time, by a looooong shot. You can say all the racist comments and hophobic comments and other stupid comments in your own home. Just don't bother me in mine.

 

[Hadlowe]

I find the veracity of this statement to be highly questionable. If this were true, YouTube would have been shut down years ago.

A link to a general page on the tort of Publication of Private Facts.

I will point out that this particular event would very likely fall into the "public interest" exception to the general rule because Sterling is very much a public figure and there is obviously a great deal of public interest, but the general right to not have your dirty laundry aired in the community still stands.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't like the fact that this action encourages the surreptitious recording of persons in their home. So what's next?

It wasn't surreptitious, if Stiviano is to believed; he knew about it, and consented to it.

Think about the paparazzi, throw in some high tech recording devices, add a dash of leakage to the world wide web, and what have you got? Fricken scary, that's what.

I'm sorry, were paparazzi outlawed since Saturday?

Freedom of speach and the sanctity of the home and privacy trumps racist comments to me every time, by a looooong shot.

Your right to freedom of speech is only protected from the government. It's not protected from the neighborhood watch, or the homeowner's association.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

A link to a general page on the tort of Publication of Private Facts.

I will point out that this particular event would very likely fall into the "public interest" exception to the general rule because Sterling is very much a public figure and there is obviously a great deal of public interest, but the general right to not have your dirty laundry aired in the community still stands.

But, again, if that's how it works, then how is YouTube still in business? Hell, how is TMZ still in business? You obviously don't have the right to not have your dirty laundry aired in public or, if you do, it's obviously not as "cut and dry" as all that.

Either that, or else, there are some aspects of the law that apply to Joe Citizen that don't apply to the rich and famous. In which case, the moral of the story would be, if you're rich and famous, don't be a horrible person.

 

[whozit]

It would have been better, without question, but the fact that it wasn't doesn't mean that it doesn't count; it doesn't invalidate the truth of the situation.

You have the right to privacy, as it pertains to the government. You don't have the "right" to privacy, as it pertains to your neighbor, or your mistress. Sterling has a reasonable expectation of privacy, but his rights were not violated. Stiviano didn't eavesdrop on him; if you believe her claims (and I have no reason not to), she recorded their conversations with his knowledge and consent. She didn't violate his privacy: it's not, substantively, any different from if you took naked pictures of your partner, and then posted them on the internet after you broke up. It's not a "rights" issue; if she had written a "tell-all" book, instead of emailing the conversation to TMZ, he wouldn't get to cry "rights." How is this any different?

And this is OK?

 

[Hadlowe]

But, again, if that's how it works, then how is YouTube still in business? Hell, how is TMZ still in business? You obviously don't have the right to not have your dirty laundry aired in public or, if you do, it's obviously not as "cut and dry" as all that.

Either that, or else, there are some aspects of the law that apply to Joe Citizen that don't apply to the rich and famous. In which case, the moral of the story would be, if you're rich and famous, don't be a horrible person.

1) There's lots of stuff on Youtube that is actionable. It's usually just not worth it to sue over it because . . .

2) Lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming, and ugly. You have to spend time around lawyers, and nobody wants to do that. Damages in breach of privacy suits are generally hard to prove, meaning most lawyers won't touch them.

3) You are spot on in your second paragraph. Public figures are generally less protected by these rules as compared with Joe Blow in Dubuque.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And this is OK?

Well, it's apparently not illegal. Whether or not it's "OK" is a value judgement, up to the reader. It's not generally discussed as a "privacy" issue, though.

 

[Padrino]

"I think you've got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It's a very, very slippery slope." - M. Cuban

I agree with this. And I agree with what Cuban said. Essentially, the NBA is taking away Sterling's franchise because of what he said behind closed doors. Silver said he did not look at past actions; therefore, it wasn't a straw at all. Therefore, all the other previous acts were not taken into account, presumably because the NBA didn't want to account for their non-response to the previous acts. Therefore, this is a stand-alone situation in which Sterling said a comment offensive to most of society in his home and now he loses his franchise because of it. Maybe it's because I'm sick and tired of ther over-the-top political correctness of this society, which is just a euphemism for societal tyranny, but I think the punishment of the league is disproportional to Sterling's act. I'll let the courts figure out if the punishment should stand.

I don't like the fact that this action encourages the surreptitious recording of persons in their home. So what's next? Recording our every move in our house to make sure we don't say racist statements or other statements that others find offensive? Think about the paparazzi, throw in some high tech recording devices, add a dash of leakage to the world wide web, and what have you got? Fricken scary, that's what. Freedom of speach and the sanctity of the home and privacy trumps racist comments to me every time, by a looooong shot. You can say all the racist comments and hophobic comments and other stupid comments in your own home. Just don't bother me in mine.

people keep bringing up "what [sterling] said behind closed doors" as if that's actually the case; it's not. the conversation was recorded and then disseminated to the public. one can certainly take issue with the manner in which ms. stiviano acted, but that doesn't change the fact that the conversation is no longer "private." it is no longer "behind closed doors." it is, in fact, very, very public, at this point. and the nba has every right to insulate itself from the fallout of that very public conversation...

the constitution of the united states of america grants each individual the right to free speech; the 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with one's right to speak freely. however, it does not guarantee protection from the many consequences that result from particular kinds of free speech. if one chooses to freely express one's racist views, and those views are made known to the larger professional entity that one is in contract with, then that entity is likewise free to sever business with the individual in question...

here's the deal: societal realities are changing very rapidly. we live in a world absolutely saturated in connectivity. people need to be more careful with their language and their behavior in an era where just about everyone's cell phone is equipped to photograph and record. if your friends post drunken photos of you from "the night before" on facebook, and your employer catches wind of those photos, then your employer has every right to distance themselves from behavior that they do not want to be associated with by firing you. it happens all the time because too many people forget that certain forms of expression are not without personal and professional consequences. this isn't "big brother" we're talking about here; the nsa's reach is an entirely separate conversation. this is us. this is "we, the people" not being fully acquainted with our own rights, and not being fully acquainted with the consequences that may result from exercising those rights...

the internet is, largely, a public space, and i certainly don't expect an old, out-of-touch, racist, sexist, egocentric slumlord to understand the realities of the internet era, but i'm quite glad he got caught, in this instance. once again, the constitution protects his right to be a racist a$$hole; the government will not level any penalties at donald sterling for his comments. but the nba, as a private entity, is within its rights to strip him of his privilege to own a team by forcing a sale, a situation in which sterling will be extremely well-compensated for that loss of property...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

1) There's lots of stuff on Youtube that is actionable. It's usually just not worth it to sue over it because . . .

2) Lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming, and ugly. You have to spend time around lawyers, and nobody wants to do that. Damages in breach of privacy suits are generally hard to prove, meaning most lawyers won't touch them.

So, if it's so hard to prove, why are so many people displosed to believe that that's what happened?

 

[whozit]

Well, it's apparently not illegal. Whether or not it's "OK" is a value judgement, up to the reader. It's not generally discussed as a "privacy" issue, though.

I was going on the value judgement. IMHO, it may not be illegal but it sure doesn't feel right. I would put anything associated with that action as tainted even if it is deserved.

 

[Hadlowe]

So, if it's so hard to prove, why are so many people displosed to believe that that's what happened?

Sorry, lawyer mode kicked in there. It's very easy to prove that the breach of privacy occurred. Damages are the part that comes afterward where you try to put a dollar figure on to how much the breach should cost the defendant. It's very difficult to quantify most damages to reputation unless there is a job loss or other measurable consequence. So a video of someone getting pantsed on Youtube is a breach of privacy, but the damages are going to be inherently arbitrary, which means that your lawyer is risking attorneys fees on 1/3 of a crapshoot.

 

[kupman]

I really do not know how all this works. It does make me wonder though, can my employer fire me for something I say to my spouse, or a friend, in my own home? Can my employer fine me $2.5 million for it?

 

[Hadlowe]

I really do not know how all this works. It does make me wonder though, can my employer fire me for something I say to my spouse, or a friend, in my own home? Can my employer fine me $2.5 million for it?

I guess that would depend on what your employment contract says.

This isn't an employee/employer relationship. This is more like a partnership arrangement between the 30 owners/ownership groups, and it is governed by a set of bylaws and contracts.

Like Garrison Keillor said about Alger Hiss, Sterling is not the victim of a witch hunt; he actually was a witch.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

I really do not know how all this works. It does make me wonder though, can my employer fire me for something I say to my spouse, or a friend, in my own home? Can my employer fine me $2.5 million for it?

Unless your employment contract obliges you to abide by a certain set of by-laws which state that your employer is allowed to fine you $2.5 million, then no

 

[Gary]

Why is she a gold digger again? Maybe I missed something. Seems to me she was just sick of his despicable behaviour. So what if she wanted to ruin his public image - he deserves it.

If I was her it would have been all about the $$. The guy is a dirty old man who's racist to boot. Not to mention he's not even remotely handsome and is overweight. I would question it if it WASN'T about the money for her.

But it really makes no difference because this isn't about her. This is about that despicable POS being an a-hole. He should have never been allowed to own a team with his views.

 

[ninjabiscuit]

Sorry, lawyer mode kicked in there. It's very easy to prove that the breach of privacy occurred. Damages are the part that comes afterward where you try to put a dollar figure on to how much the breach should cost the defendant. It's very difficult to quantify most damages to reputation unless there is a job loss or other measurable consequence. So a video of someone getting pantsed on Youtube is a breach of privacy, but the damages are going to be inherently arbitrary, which means that your lawyer is risking attorneys fees on 1/3 of a crapshoot.

Not directed at you, per se, just a question:

It seems to me that people are getting hung up on whether or not the woman who recorded the conversation broke the law. It seems to me that whether she did or did not break the law has nothing to do with whether or not Sterling deserves to own an NBA team, in the eyes of the commissioner and the other owners. His nasty racist statements got out in public, Silver asked Sterling whether or not it was his voice on those recordings, and he said it was. Whether or not Sterling deserves that punishment from the NBA is not subject to the same criteria that you see in a legal trial...so I'm not sure why the two keep getting pushed together.

I guess what I'm asking is why it's being suggested that the "evidence" has to be gathered a certain way for the NBA to do what it did. Even if the evidence was obtained or transmitted in a completely illegal way (from a law enforcement standpoint), the NBA can still do what it wants if the owner is a racist piece of trash (and confirms it by saying that the statements were his). Am I missing something?

 

[Dime Dropper]

If I was her it would have been all about the $$. The guy is a dirty old man who's racist to boot. Not to mention he's not even remotely handsome and is overweight. I would question it if it WASN'T about the money for her.

But it really makes no difference because this isn't about her. This is about that despicable POS being an a-hole. He should have never been allowed to own a team with his views.

Yep, I thought he was referring to her being a gold digger for releasing the tape. Of course she's not with him for his personality/looks, I wouldn't have argued that. Still, if he's pathetic enough to pay her just to be seen with him, I don't really feel comfortable calling her a gold digger. It's her life, as long as she's not hurting anyone or deceiving him for financial gain, she can do what she wants.