# Banned for life



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 29, 2014)

No, this isn't a thread about OTTers and the WoTC forums. 



> Silver said the Clippers owner was banned from any association with the team for life and fined $2.5 million. Silver added that he would urge other owners to force a sale of the team.





I doubt they'll get him ejected. I'n fact, I'm betting after a while, they may lift these sanctions.

It kind of sucks for the team that after being terrible, they are finally doing good, and they have this kind of distraction.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 29, 2014)

It's interesting, IMO.  Obviously what he said was out of bounds but it doesn't appear he actually discriminated that way in his basketball business.  I _have _heard that he's not such a great dood in his other ventures, though.  That said, I find it sort of odd that they'd ban him and try to force him out for not doing anything other that saying something terrible in a private conversation.  If his coach wants to quit and his team wants to bail because of it, fine - that's on them.  But for Silver to ask for this?  Seems extreme.  I mean, the worst they actually have him on other than saying what he did is allegedly not wanting to pay white players as much as black players.  Allegedly.  Meh, I get what the league wants to do and don't really care that a racist is gonna get punished but it really doesn't seem to fit to me.  Had he practiced what he preached by refusing tickets to minorities or something I'd feel differently.  Right now, there's no proof he did anything even remotely close to that.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 29, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It's interesting, IMO.  Obviously what he said was out of bounds but it doesn't appear he actually discriminated that way in his basketball business.  I _have _heard that he's not such a great dood in his other ventures, though.  That said, I find it sort of odd that they'd ban him and try to force him out for not doing anything other that saying something terrible in a private conversation.



Producing a tape in our mediatic age is pretty damning evidence in the court of public opinion. 



> If his coach wants to quit and his team wants to bail because of it, fine - that's on them.  But for Silver to ask for this?  Seems extreme.  I mean, the worst they actually have him on other than saying what he did is allegedly not wanting to pay white players as much as black players.  Allegedly.  Meh, I get what the league wants to do and don't really care that a racist is gonna get punished but it really doesn't seem to fit to me.  Had he practiced what he preached by refusing tickets to minorities or something I'd feel differently.  Right now, there's no proof he did anything even remotely close to that.



It is bad for the NBA's image, the majority of players are black and I wonder how many fans are black. It is public relations more than anything else.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 29, 2014)

I think it's a good move.

However, it's been rightly noted that this owner had a long history of misconduct, some of it discriminatory in nature, and was in substance a terrible sports owner whose franchise was the laughingstock of the sport for most of his tenure. There were a variety of other accusations made against him. It seems like if the league had wanted to get rid of him they could have found a reason years ago; instead, their hand was simply forced by the disclosed audio and the fan and corporate backlash.

On one hand, that makes the decision look better. If there was some context that made it seem like his words were uncharacteristic, it would be inappropriate to take this scale of action over one moment. It seems, however, that they are indeed reflective of his views.

On the other hand, it begs the question of why action wasn't taken sooner. Surely, if they'd done some serious investigation they would have found something years ago. Luckily for the NBA, they have a new commissioner, and the old one doesn't have to answer those questions. There is some hope, though, that this new guy will enforce higher ethical standards throughout the league, starting here.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 29, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Producing a tape in our mediatic age is pretty damning evidence in the court of public opinion.




The only source saying he agreed to be taped saying that stuff that I'm aware of is TMZ.  As they also made the tape public and recording someone without their knowledge is illegal, well, it seems pretty damned suspect that those were words he was cool with putting to tape.  She probably secretly taped him and leaked it.  In other words, what he said was most likely a _private _conversation.

Regardless, nothing he said had anything to do with his business.  



> It is bad for the NBA's image, the majority of players are black and I wonder how many fans are black. It is public relations more than anything else.




So's criminal behavior and yet they rarely act on that.  I get it's PR but, to me, it's awful flimsy precedent to force a financial penalty on someone of this scale - and I don't mean $2.5 million.  

We need to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that he acted toward employees or customers in the way he spoke in that_ private _conversation_._



Ahnehnois said:


> On the other hand, it begs the question of why action wasn't taken sooner.




The answer to that question is remarkably simple: There was no evidence whatsoever to any wrongdoing - especially concerning NBA business - by him.  He was taken to court over discriminatory practices in his other business but never for anything NBA related.  He also wasn't convicted of any wrongdoing nor was he ordered to pay any compensation.  He _did _settle but that's not an indication of guilt which is why - especially, again, considering the fact that this had nothing to do with basketball - the league did nothing.

It's easy to condemn someone for something they say.  We need to remember, though, that pretty much all of us have said some heinous poo of one sort or another during our lifetimes.  It's unfair to ruin someone for something they _said _- especially in America.  Again: said, not _did_.  That's an important distinction we seem all to willing to forget these days.

I hate coming off like I'm defending some racist - I'm not.  All I'm trying to say is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  I understand the NBA's actions, understand the organization's right to those actions and really don't care all that much that some racist moron is gonna lose something he cares about.  I do, however, have an issue with the precedent this sort of thing sets.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 29, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The answer to that question is remarkably simple: There was no evidence whatsoever to any wrongdoing - especially concerning NBA business - by him.



I'm not an expert, but you'll find plenty of people saying otherwise. To say that there wasn't sufficient evidence to win a legal case against someone who is rich and a lawyer is not the same thing as saying there was insufficient evidence for institutional discipline. The NBA's rules give the commissioner very broad authority; he isn't bound by the rules of the judicial system.

Moreover, as I stated, that sounds like a case of "hear no evil, see no evil". I find it entirely plausible that if this girlfriend of his got these statements on tape, if the NBA had rigorously investigated the serious allegations by some former players and coaches associated with him, they would have found something indicating that he held bigoted views and mistreated people.

However, somewhat separately, there is an abundance of evidence that he did a terrible job running the team; which in and of itself should have been enough reason to get rid of him. That's NBA business. As is often the case, his high stature shielded him from the consequences of incompetence. Even if he was not a racist, isn't having the lowest winning percentage in the league enough reason for the league to want to get rid of him? There are several sports owners who seem to have decided that losing is profitable, which is bad for the sport. In sports, you're supposed to try to win. That's the sort of thing the commissioners of the various leagues are empowered to stop. For example, Miami Marlins fans would certainly like to be rid of their owner. Heck, we in DC would be happy to be rid of Dan Snyder (also for a mix of business and personal reasons). It's ironic that this is happening just as the team is becoming a legitimate competitive basketball team.



> It's easy to condemn someone for something they say.  We need to remember, though, that pretty much all of us have said some heinous poo of one sort or another during our lifetimes.  It's unfair to ruin someone for something they _said _- especially in America.  Again: said, not _did_.



I don't think this will ruin him. I also think it's entirely fair that if he ruins the league's image, the league can get rid of him. Again, this is business, not criminal justice. People get fired for saying less objectionable things than this all the time. You can make business decisions for a broad variety of reasons. The same thing, for example, was said about Hank Williams when he was booted from Monday Night Football, and the answer is the same. He has a right to free speech, including objectionable speech, but that can have social and financial consequences independent of the criminal justice system.

I also suspect that his one damning statement is being used as a proxy for a long record of bad behavior that was never punished before. Comeuppance.



> I hate coming off like I'm defending some racist - I'm not.  All I'm trying to say is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.



He hasn't been accused of any crime. I think the business decision by the league fits the bad decisions he made. It seems clear that the league acted within its constitution, which all its member owners signed on to.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 29, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The only source saying he agreed to be taped saying that stuff that I'm aware of is TMZ.  As they also made the tape public and recording someone without their knowledge is illegal, well, it seems pretty damned suspect that those were words he was cool with putting to tape.  She probably secretly taped him and leaked it.  In other words, what he said was most likely a _private _conversation.



It doesn't matter. Now it is public. He can sue if he wants. If you did not think/speak ill of black folk, he wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. 



> Regardless, nothing he said had anything to do with his business.



It has an impact on the image of the NBA, whether what he said was related to it or not (well it was a bit, since he asked not to bring black folk to games).



> So's criminal behavior and yet they rarely act on that.  I get it's PR but, to me, it's awful flimsy precedent to force a financial penalty on someone of this scale - and I don't mean $2.5 million.
> 
> We need to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that he acted toward employees or customers in the way he spoke in that_ private _conversation_._



It doesn't matter. Image doesn't bother with criminal guilt. What he said was pretty damaging for the brand though. 



> The answer to that question is remarkably simple: There was no evidence whatsoever to any wrongdoing - especially concerning NBA business - by him.



Legally no. No one said he said he did either. Morally, yeah he did, and that is enough to get kicked in the nuts by the NBA nowadays. 

On the flip side, you got business like Chick filet or whatever who supports homophobia and gets business because of it.



> It's easy to condemn someone for something they say.  We need to remember, though, that pretty much all of us have said some heinous poo of one sort or another during our lifetimes.



In a serious fashion? Speak for yourself.  



> It's unfair to ruin someone for something they _said _- especially in America.



Not really. It is all "market forces" at work.  



> I hate coming off like I'm defending some racist - I'm not.



I'm sure you have many black friends.  

[quot]All I'm trying to say is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  I understand the NBA's actions, understand the organization's right to those actions and really don't care all that much that some racist moron is gonna lose something he cares about.  I do, however, have an issue with the precedent this sort of thing sets.[/QUOTE]Maybe petition your law makers to protect bigotted speach?


----------



## Janx (Apr 29, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The only source saying he agreed to be taped saying that stuff that I'm aware of is TMZ.  As they also made the tape public and recording someone without their knowledge is illegal, well, it seems pretty damned suspect that those were words he was cool with putting to tape.  She probably secretly taped him and leaked it.  In other words, what he said was most likely a _private _conversation.




It depends on the state.  In Texas, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one participant knows it is being recorded.

As for the Clippers' owner, he's a real estate guy who'd been sued over discriminatory practices against minorities.  This pretty much clinches that the guy is a racist, rather than a guy who said the N-word when he should have known better.

As for being banned for life, that is I guess the consequence for offending a large enough demographic.  And given his wealth and power, what other punishment would have been sufficient?  heck, he'll get to sell his share of the team and make money on his way out, no doubt.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 30, 2014)

It's not that big a surprise- this guy is essentially the NBA's answer to Marge Schott.

Not only has the been increased scrutiny of the inflammatory statements of American business owners in general over the past couple of decades, that scrutiny has been more intense in American pro sports businesses because of the special treatment they get under our legal system.

Plus, athletes & sports fans around the world are, in general, trending towards less tolerance for intolerance.

Add in all the lucrative advertisement deals with image conscious brands, and the overall patience for sports owners who speak incautiously is pretty minimal.


----------



## Kaodi (Apr 30, 2014)

I do not understand how they fine him and ban him. The ability to be fined by a private organization is contingent on being a member. They are making him a non-member, so how are they still fining him?


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> I do not understand how they fine him and ban him. The ability to be fined by a private organization is contingent on being a member. They are making him a non-member, so how are they still fining him?



The magic of contracts, probably.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 30, 2014)

He has not been divested of ownership, so he is still a mamber of the organization.  It's like being a player who is fined and on indeterminated suspension from his pro league.  Unless he actually leaves, he's bound.

And if he left and tried to return, he'd remain under the same restrictions' assuming they let him back in.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> As they also made the tape public and recording someone without their knowledge is illegal...




That varies.  The relevant Federal law is one-party consent.  Some states also only require one party consent, some states require consent of all parties involved, and I don't think we know what state he was in when the recording was made.

Edit:  Oops.  Janx beat me to it.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That said, I find it sort of odd that they'd ban him and try to force him out for not doing anything other that saying something terrible in a private conversation.



A bunch of advertisers dropped the Clippers yesterday or the day before. He has damaged the image of the NBA, and the owners I would say, with his remarks - private as they may have been. I believe it's in the contract that the owners have to sign that they have protect the image of the NBA.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> On the flip side, you got business like Chick filet or whatever who supports homophobia and gets business because of it.




I don't have a link handy, but turns out - not so much. Sure, they had a big bump right after the incident, but supportive people went back to their usual fast food habits pretty quickly, but the boycotters didn't, so net sales are down for Chick-Fil-A.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Regardless, nothing he said had anything to do with his business.



Sure it does. He mentions, or at least refers to, Magic Johnson ad bringing black people to the games. The games are the business - or at least part of it. And as has been pointed out before, it's a pretty bad hit to the NBA brand when an owner of an organization where ~78% of players are black says such things about black people. Hell, he even mentions the black players on the call.


> So's criminal behavior and yet they rarely act on that.  I get it's PR but, to me, it's awful flimsy precedent to force a financial penalty on someone of this scale - and I don't mean $2.5 million.



So you think they should have forced him to watch LeBron's "decision" until his eyes exploded, and he bled to death? You're a cruel person, ZB.


> We need to remember that there is no evidence whatsoever that he acted toward employees or customers in the way he spoke in that_ private _conversation_._



_Sure, it was a private conversation, but so what? That doesn't change what he said. It also became a public conversation once it was released. Would you, if you were a black player or fan, trust that this guy, who has a history of discrimination in his business dealings, to not discriminate against you? Do you think it would affect the way other players and/or fans see the Clippers and the NBA when it comes to tickets or whatever? How about employees of the Clippers that aren't players? Would you expect that an employee who gets passed for a promotion, and happens to be a minority, to think that it has nothing to do with the way this guy sees minorities? Sure, he may be a different kind of racist - one that says racist things, but doesn't act on them - but it doesn't really matter. He severely damaged the trust the players and the fans, and other employees have of him and the NBA by association. Whether or not he has actually discriminated against employees or fans doesn't really matter. He  lost that credibility, and now a lot of things are going to be seen through the lens of this guy being a racist._


> The answer to that question is remarkably simple: There was no evidence whatsoever to any wrongdoing - especially concerning NBA business - by him.  He was taken to court over discriminatory practices in his other business but never for anything NBA related.  He also wasn't convicted of any wrongdoing nor was he ordered to pay any compensation.  He _did _settle but that's not an indication of guilt which is why - especially, again, considering the fact that this had nothing to do with basketball - the league did nothing.



Just imagine if this phone recording had come out at the time of his discrimination. What do you think would have been the outcome then?



> It's easy to condemn someone for something they say.  We need to remember, though, that pretty much all of us have said some heinous poo of one sort or another during our lifetimes.  It's unfair to ruin someone for something they _said _- especially in America.  Again: said, not _did_.  That's an important distinction we seem all to willing to forget these days.



Yeah, ruin him, right.
Seriously, the Clippers aren't his entire business. In fact, you have to take into consideration the Clippers record since this guy bought them. That record has been super suctastic. t wasn't until three or so years ago that they started to actually play basketball. Before that, they played the role of tomato cans. This guy has been a terrible owner for the almost 30-something years. Getting rid of him is the best thing that could happen for the Clippers. And by the way, if he is forced to sell them, he'll bank somewhere between 500 and 700 million dollars. For that kind of money, you can ruin me all you want. I'll let you record me saying things that'll make the KKK go "Woah buddy, that's just a bit too much hate there."


> I hate coming off like I'm defending some racist - I'm not.  All I'm trying to say is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  I understand the NBA's actions, understand the organization's right to those actions and really don't care all that much that some racist moron is gonna lose something he cares about.  I do, however, have an issue with the precedent this sort of thing sets.



The precedent this will set is to put owners on notice that this kind of hate isn't allowed. That seems to be a pretty good precedent to set.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 30, 2014)

And let's be honest- the NBA isn't an all white Protestant men's club anymore. There's one black guy, a few Jewish people, an Indian, a Lebanese/Greek owner, and a woman among them now, so it's not like they're going to be as tolerant of this attitude as it may have been in past eras.

As for the comparison between his words and the criminal acts of pro athletes, you're right: there is a double standard. But fans (and sponsors) are still a lot more forgiving of criminal activity of those who directly contribute to the successes and failures of the teams than they are of the foibles and failures of the people who rake in the big bucks.

...the guys who threaten to move teams if there isn't a new arena (to increase/maintain profitability)

...and still fail to field winning or even competent teams while the city struggles repaying the bond or the sales tax bump that built the LAST stadium...

...while ticket prices increase on a predictable schedule.

Etc.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And let's be honest- the NBA isn't an all white Protestant men's club anymore. There's one black guy, a few Jewish people, an Indian, a Lebanese/Greek owner, and a woman among them now, so it's not like they're going to be as tolerant of this attitude as it may have been in past eras.



You're assuming "minorities" and women can't be racist too.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2014)

Cor Azer said:


> I don't have a link handy, but turns out - not so much. Sure, they had a big bump right after the incident, but supportive people went back to their usual fast food habits pretty quickly, but the boycotters didn't, so net sales are down for Chick-Fil-A.



Chick-Fil-A isn't fast food!? 

_Sacre bleu!_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You're assuming "minorities" and women can't be racist too.




No, I'm not.  I know several racist women (including my own white-hating aunt.).  But given the history of that _particular_ owner and her family, its unlikely that she is a racist.

Besides, Sterling's commentary didn't exactly come off as female-friendly either...







(FWIW, you could have also made a similar assertion about me assuming Jews couldn't be racist, but Sterling clearly demonstrated that isn't the case...and again, my personal experiences would also prevent me from making that assumption.)


----------



## Dioltach (Apr 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You're assuming "minorities" and women can't be racist too.




Of course they can. But the more homogenous the group, the more likely it is that the members will be tolerant toward each other.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2014)

Dioltach said:


> Of course they can. But the more homogenous the group, the more likely it is that the members will be tolerant toward each other.



They are all rich, seems pretty homogenous.


----------



## Dioltach (Apr 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> They are all rich, seems pretty homogenous.




Duh, I meant heterogenous.


----------



## Cor Azer (Apr 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Chick-Fil-A isn't fast food!?
> 
> _Sacre bleu!_




Didn't say that.

People had to make an effort to go to Chick-Fil-A instead of their usual MacDonalds, White Castle, or where ever (not being American, I dunno their main competitors). Doing so long term takes a lot more motivation than most people are willing to muster if the issue doesn't directly affect them.


----------



## jasper (Apr 30, 2014)

Ok, since the NBA has said any bigot comments gets you banned for life and this is zero tolerance issue. Will they follow it up if a player, coach, employee put their foot in their mouth?


----------



## Umbran (Apr 30, 2014)

jasper said:


> Ok, since the NBA has said any bigot comments gets you banned for life and this is zero tolerance issue.




I haven't seen the NBA make that statement.  The NBA Commissioner has taken an action in this one specific case, and I haven't seen any statement of a new policy as you suggest here.

Sterling is a very high-profile individual, and we should expect the commissioner to come down on him more heavily than lower-ranking people.


----------



## jasper (Apr 30, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I haven't seen the NBA make that statement.  The NBA Commissioner has taken an action in this one specific case, and I haven't seen any statement of a new policy as you suggest here.
> 
> Sterling is a very high-profile individual, and we should expect the commissioner to come down on him more heavily than lower-ranking people.




That is in general what he said.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 30, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not an expert, but you'll find plenty of people saying otherwise. To say that there wasn't sufficient evidence to win a legal case against someone who is rich and a lawyer is not the same thing as saying there was insufficient evidence for institutional discipline. The NBA's rules give the commissioner very broad authority; he isn't bound by the rules of the judicial system.
> 
> Moreover, as I stated, that sounds like a case of "hear no evil, see no evil". I find it entirely plausible that if this girlfriend of his got these statements on tape, if the NBA had rigorously investigated the serious allegations by some former players and coaches associated with him, they would have found something indicating that he held bigoted views and mistreated people.




If you're gonna take action against someone for something they did then you best have evidence they did it.  When that case came out, there was no evidence beyond some people saying some stuff.  

Do I think he did what they said he did?  Most likely.  My assumption, however, should never be evidence enough.  That goes for yours and everyone elses', too.



> However, somewhat separately, there is an abundance of evidence that he did a terrible job running the team; which in and of itself should have been enough reason to get rid of him. That's NBA business. As is often the case, his high stature shielded him from the consequences of incompetence. Even if he was not a racist, isn't having the lowest winning percentage in the league enough reason for the league to want to get rid of him? There are several sports owners who seem to have decided that losing is profitable, which is bad for the sport. In sports, you're supposed to try to win. That's the sort of thing the commissioners of the various leagues are empowered to stop. For example, Miami Marlins fans would certainly like to be rid of their owner. Heck, we in DC would be happy to be rid of Dan Snyder (also for a mix of business and personal reasons). It's ironic that this is happening just as the team is becoming a legitimate competitive basketball team.




Well, there's some NBA political stuff there.  It _helped _the other owners that this guy was fielding a loser and couldn't draft to save his life.  They liked it.  Plus his unwillingness to move out of LA's spotlight gave two NBA teams to a city with no more football.  There's reasons that his craptastic ownership was tolerated.

I feel ya on the bad owners, though.  I'm a Cleveland fan.  



> I don't think this will ruin him. I also think it's entirely fair that if he ruins the league's image, the league can get rid of him. Again, this is business, not criminal justice. People get fired for saying less objectionable things than this all the time. You can make business decisions for a broad variety of reasons. The same thing, for example, was said about Hank Williams when he was booted from Monday Night Football, and the answer is the same. He has a right to free speech, including objectionable speech, but that can have social and financial consequences independent of the criminal justice system.




Yeah, I must have been drunk when I wrote 'ruin him'.  Wow ... I really don't know what I was thinking.  

Again, I understand the league's prerogative and rights here.  I just think they took this too far.

As far as the right to say what you want but not be punished, well, that's a defacto limit on that right, isn't it?  It's not free speech if someone can take something away from you for what you say.



> I also suspect that his one damning statement is being used as a proxy for a long record of bad behavior that was never punished before. Comeuppance.




I'm sure that played a part.  It's also a new commissioner looking to make his bones.  



> He hasn't been accused of any crime. I think the business decision by the league fits the bad decisions he made. It seems clear that the league acted within its constitution, which all its member owners signed on to.




That was a turn of phrase.  And, again, I'm not saying the league did anything it wasn't allowed to do.



goldomark said:


> It doesn't matter. Now it is public. He can sue if he wants. If you did not think/speak ill of black folk, he wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.




Hell yeah it matters.  It wasn't for public dissemination.  Context matters a lot.



> It has an impact on the image of the NBA, whether what he said was related to it or not (well it was a bit, since he asked not to bring black folk to games).




Context.  He didn't say he didn't want black fans to buy tickets, he told the woman he pays to be his companion he'd appreciate it if she refrained from bringing certain people to the games.  He never said they couldn't buy their own tickets.



> [/I]It doesn't matter. Image doesn't bother with criminal guilt. What he said was pretty damaging for the brand though.




That it was.



> I'm sure you have many black friends.




I do, but since I was asked not to bring them to these forums ... 



> Maybe petition your law makers to protect bigotted speach?




It's supposed to be Constitutionally protected right now.  This ain't Canadia.



Janx said:


> It depends on the state.  In Texas, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one participant knows it is being recorded.
> 
> As for the Clippers' owner, he's a real estate guy who'd been sued over discriminatory practices against minorities.  This pretty much clinches that the guy is a racist, rather than a guy who said the N-word when he should have known better.
> 
> As for being banned for life, that is I guess the consequence for offending a large enough demographic.  And given his wealth and power, what other punishment would have been sufficient?  heck, he'll get to sell his share of the team and make money on his way out, no doubt.




Whoa, being sued does not mean you're guilty.  The Duke lacrosse team would probably vouch for that.  

I mean, the guy is a racist - I don't doubt that.  My issue is that if he wasn't racist in his behavior towards employees and customers, so what?  His stupid ideas aren't causing any actual harm.  It's like having a super religious science teacher.  They may believe that the Earth is only 6k years old or whatever but so long as they aren't teaching kids that inside the classroom, who cares?  It doesn't matter a whit.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> A bunch of advertisers dropped the Clippers yesterday or the day before. He has damaged the image of the NBA, and the owners I would say, with his remarks - private as they may have been. I believe it's in the contract that the owners have to sign that they have protect the image of the NBA.




Again, I'm not arguing that the NBA didn't have a right to do what they did.Sponsors dropping his team is what should happen, though.  That's how this stuff needs to work.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Sure it does. He mentions, or at least refers to, Magic Johnson ad bringing black people to the games. The games are the business - or at least part of it. And as has been pointed out before, it's a pretty bad hit to the NBA brand when an owner of an organization where ~78% of players are black says such things about black people. Hell, he even mentions the black players on the call.




And this is the problem with making private conversations public: People refuse to consider the context.  As I explained ot goldo above, he wasn't saying that Magic Johnson couldn't come to his games or buy tickets to them.  He never said black people shouldn't show up or that they should be refused service.  That's not even close to what he said and yet that's the way it's being presented.  I have to wonder how many of the outraged folks out there even know what they're outraged about.

Read the transcript.  He may be racist as hell but he never once suggests that black people aren't welcome at his games or that they should be refused admittance or service or anything like that.  He was telling his paid companion what guests he'd appreciate her no longer bringing to the games. That's not a paying customer, it's a comped fan.  Comped with his money.



> So you think they should have forced him to watch LeBron's "decision" until his eyes exploded, and he bled to death? You're a cruel person, ZB.




Not just that.  This racist should also have been forced to read out loud Dan Gilbert's whiney letter about LeBron until his tongue fell out, too.  



> Sure, it was a private conversation, but so what? That doesn't change what he said. It also became a public conversation once it was released. Would you, if you were a black player or fan, trust that this guy, who has a history of discrimination in his business dealings, to not discriminate against you? Do you think it would affect the way other players and/or fans see the Clippers and the NBA when it comes to tickets or whatever? How about employees of the Clippers that aren't players? Would you expect that an employee who gets passed for a promotion, and happens to be a minority, to think that it has nothing to do with the way this guy sees minorities? Sure, he may be a different kind of racist - one that says racist things, but doesn't act on them - but it doesn't really matter. He severely damaged the trust the players and the fans, and other employees have of him and the NBA by association. Whether or not he has actually discriminated against employees or fans doesn't really matter. He  lost that credibility, and now a lot of things are going to be seen through the lens of this guy being a racist.[/I]
> Just imagine if this phone recording had come out at the time of his discrimination. What do you think would have been the outcome then?




As I said before, if Doc Rivers wants to say f-you and refuse to come back, if his players want to do more than wear their jerseys inside out and instead all bail as soon as they're able or refuse to play until they're traded, if the concession workers all walk out and quit, if the fans cancel their season tickets and refuse to show up, if the fans at home refuse to watch a game, well that's great.  That's how this _should _play out.  They're adults who can - and should have the right to - make their own decisions.  

We need to tread very carefully when we punish people for what they say instead of what they do.  



> Yeah, ruin him, right.[/quoe]
> 
> Yeah, I must have been drunk.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Apr 30, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I haven't seen the NBA make that statement.  The NBA Commissioner has taken an action in this one specific case, and I haven't seen any statement of a new policy as you suggest here.
> 
> Sterling is a very high-profile individual, and we should expect the commissioner to come down on him more heavily than lower-ranking people.




Lower ranking people?  Like the vastly famous people who play the game?  The guys who everyone can recognize?  They've had players say some awful things about gays and they did _nothing_.  This is about a new commissioner looking to make his name.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> As far as the right to say what you want but not be punished, well, that's a defacto limit on that right, isn't it?  It's not free speech if someone can take something away from you for what you say.




The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...".  The NBA is not a branch of the US government

Sterling willingly did business with the NBA, and thereby personally and willfully agreed to their rules and rulings.  



> It's supposed to be Constitutionally protected right now.




See above - the right to free speech is actually the right to not have the *government* shut you up.  It does not protect you from cheesing off private individuals, or making yourself a PR liability to your business partners.



> His stupid ideas aren't causing any actual harm.




On the contrary - his stupid behaviors are now threatening to make advertisers drop the team in droves.  His stupid ideas are having an impact on the reputation and business of the NBA, thought possible player walkout.  Sounds like harm to the business to me.  



Zombie_Babies said:


> Lower ranking people?  Like the vastly famous people who play the game?  The guys who everyone can recognize?  They've had players say some awful things about gays and they did _nothing_.




Most players will be gone in short order - pro-athlete careers are short.  Owners can be around a long, long time - Sterling's owned the team since the 1980s. Players are not expected to impact policy, either, while owners are.  

Also, I should ask - did those players say those things during *this* commissioner's tenure, specifically?  If he's new, he may not have had power over the incidents in question, and claims that there is a double standard would then not be well-based.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Apr 30, 2014)

> As I said before, if Doc Rivers wants to say f-you and refuse to come back, if his players want to do more than wear their jerseys inside out and instead all bail as soon as they're able or refuse to play until they're traded, if the concession workers all walk out and quit, if the fans cancel their season tickets and refuse to show up, if the fans at home refuse to watch a game, well that's great. That's how this should play out. They're adults who can - and should have the right to - make their own decisions.




Actually, we know that the NBAPA held a league-wide conference call on Monday, and the NBA was facing the possibility of a full walkout if The Commish didn't take quick and harsh action.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 30, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...".  The NBA is not a branch of the US government
> 
> Sterling willingly did business with the NBA, and thereby personally and willfully agreed to their rules and rulings.



Exactly. If the league wanted to, it could fine/suspend its members for even non-criminal acts that are deemed to be against league policy. Sport leagues do that all the time.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Apr 30, 2014)

EDIT: You know what? What's the point in even responding to the stuff in this thread...


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Apr 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Again, I'm not arguing that the NBA didn't have a right to do what they did.Sponsors dropping his team is what should happen, though.  That's how this stuff needs to work.



The NBA did what any other company would do to someone that damaged it's image and brand. If you did something to make your company look bad, you'd get fired. 


> And this is the problem with making private conversations public: *People refuse to consider the context*.  As I explained ot goldo above, he wasn't saying that Magic Johnson couldn't come to his games or buy tickets to them.  He never said black people shouldn't show up or that they should be refused service.  That's not even close to what he said and yet that's the way it's being presented.  I have to wonder how many of the outraged folks out there even know what they're outraged about.



You make it sound as if just because he said something in private, he hasn't done anything that could be considered discrimination against employees or fans. He already has a track record of discrimination against minorities. The butterfly that it has come out regarding his other business dealings, does not mean it hasn't occurred in the Clippers organization.


> Not just that.  This racist should also have been forced to read out loud Dan Gilbert's whiney letter about LeBron until his tongue fell out, too.



There's a special place in hell for people like you, you monster!


> As I said before, if Doc Rivers wants to say f-you and refuse to come back, if his players want to do more than wear their jerseys inside out and instead all bail as soon as they're able or refuse to play until they're traded, if the concession workers all walk out and quit, if the fans cancel their season tickets and refuse to show up, if the fans at home refuse to watch a game, well that's great.  That's how this _should _play out.  They're adults who can - and should have the right to - make their own decisions.



They are bound by contracts. They may want to leave, and I think one of the Clippers' players said as much, but he has a contract. NPR had some legal guy on there talking about how that was a possibility if he had something about hostile work environment or something like that. So yeah, they can want to leave, but they are restricted by their contracts. Just like Sterling is bound by his contract.


> We need to tread very carefully when we punish people for what they say instead of what they do.



Why? They are both behaviors. 


> Yeah, I must have been drunk.



You must have. 


> See my explanation above as to why the suck is not a valid reason to boot the guy.  And yeah, 'ruin' was a really dumb word to choose.



Of course it's not a valid reason on it's own. Taken with everything else, it's just another notch in the boot him column.


> Ok, that's great.  So what's next?  What thing as a people do we decide that we do or don't like should we force everyone else to like or not or be punished in some way?



Whatever society decides. That's how it generally works. We have social norms, and those that violate those norms suffer the consequences. Besides, it's not like he is being criminally charged and punished with jail time. He is getting kicked out of a group. It happens all the time. You can see it in school kids. All these social cliques have similar rules and consequences. You do something that violates the group's rules, yo get ostracized from it.


> Had he _done_ something racist this would be different.  He didn't.  Nobody was even actually banned from the facility.  He told her not to bring people but never said they'd be physically prevented from entering the arena.  The bottom line is that we've seen no proof he _did _anything at all.



He has done racist things. Look at his troubles with his real estate stuff and discriminating against minorities. You can't just take what he said in the phone call and quarantine it. It's not like this guy is a racist, except when he is dealing with the Clippers. He hates black people renting in Beverly hills, but he loves black people when it has to do with basketball, unless his girlfriend brings them to a basketball game, then he hates them, unless they are players, but he might hate the other employees if they are black, unless they come to the game as a paying fan, etc.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2014)

jasper said:


> Ok, since the NBA has said any bigot comments gets you banned for life and this is zero tolerance issue. Will they follow it up if a player, coach, employee put their foot in their mouth?



Only if some tape or video goes public.


----------



## Kramodlog (Apr 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hell yeah it matters.  It wasn't for public dissemination.  Context matters a lot.



What does it change?



> Context.  He didn't say he didn't want black fans to buy tickets, he told the woman he pays to be his companion he'd appreciate it if she refrained from bringing certain people to the games.  He never said they couldn't buy their own tickets.



It doesn't make his comment less racist. 



> It's supposed to be Constitutionally protected right now.  This ain't Canadia.



It is probably protected more in Canada than in the US. The US Constitution in the only protects against guberment interference. The Charter of Rights in Canada protects free speech: 







> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:<dl style="margin-top: 0.2em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: sans-serif; line-height: 22.399999618530273px;"><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(a) freedom of conscience and religion;</dd><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;</dd><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and</dd><dd style="line-height: inherit; margin-left: 1.6em; margin-bottom: 0.1em; margin-right: 0px;">(d) freedom of association.</dd></dl>



Hate speech is an exception in Canada, but who would want to protect hate speech?


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Apr 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> It is probably protected more in Canada than in the US. The US Constitution in the only protects against guberment interference.



You will find that the US courts have "interpreted" that part of the 1st Amendment to apply beyond merely dealing with permission to dis the government, as well as there being exceptions where the government may indeed force you to shut up.  There are a great many "rights" which courts have "found to exist" in the US constitution that simply are in no way, shape or form _actually _addressed therein.  It is a matter of continuing to follow legal precedent as much (or more!) than the actual words of the constitution.  This is why some justices are referred to as, "strict constructionists," because they balk a bit more at just making stuff up on their own.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 1, 2014)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> You will find that the US courts have "interpreted" that part of the 1st Amendment to apply beyond merely dealing with permission to dis the government,



I didn't say dissing guberment was limited. I said that the US Constitution targets gubermental intervention as opposed to the Canadian Charter of Rights that protects freedom of speech period. 



> as well as there being exceptions where the government may indeed force you to shut up.



The fighting words doctrine comes to mind, but it is not really in use anymore. This is just nit picking.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...".  The NBA is not a branch of the US government
> 
> Sterling willingly did business with the NBA, and thereby personally and willfully agreed to their rules and rulings.
> 
> ...




Then we do not have freedom of speech and we need to stop pretending we do.  That's fine so long as we're honest.



> On the contrary - his stupid behaviors are now threatening to make advertisers drop the team in droves.  His stupid ideas are having an impact on the reputation and business of the NBA, thought possible player walkout.  Sounds like harm to the business to me.




Yup, advertisers are gonna stop doing business .._._ with _his _team.  You know, the one _he _owns.  They didn't threaten to stop spending money with The Heat or even The Lakers (who, coincidentally, play in the same facility as The Clippers), they said they'd stop spending their money with Sterling's team.  That's a singular impact.

I agree the brand would have been impacted had they decided to do nothing at all.  As you've no doubt noticed, however, I've never suggested that that should have been their course of action and, notice also, that I never said they didn't have the right to do what they did.



> Most players will be gone in short order - pro-athlete careers are short.  Owners can be around a long, long time - Sterling's owned the team since the 1980s. Players are not expected to impact policy, either, while owners are.




Interesting but not accurate.  Here's a simple test: Without looking any names up, give me the name of 5 NBA owners.  Now give me the names of 5 NBA players.  Tell me who, exactly, has the most impact in a public facing way?  

I mean, really.  How many people buy owners' jerseys?  Oh yeah, none.   



> Also, I should ask - did those players say those things during *this* commissioner's tenure, specifically?  If he's new, he may not have had power over the incidents in question, and claims that there is a double standard would then not be well-based.




That's a good question ... sorta.  I honestly don't know but it also really doesn't matter.  Most people here have said that the NBA did this to Sterling because of the tapes _and _because of the rumors about his behavior _prior to the new commissioner taking his post_.  If prior actions count for him, they count for the players as well.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

(Uhh ... sorry all for the multiple quotes but I was afraid of running into the text limit)



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, we know that the NBAPA held a league-wide conference call on Monday, and the NBA was facing the possibility of a full walkout if The Commish didn't take quick and harsh action.




'Quick and harsh action' allows for more than one action.  They didn't demand he be removed permanently, did they?  Did they demand the owner's vote?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Exactly. If the league wanted to, it could fine/suspend its members for even non-criminal acts that are deemed to be against league policy. Sport leagues do that all the time.




*sigh*

How many times do I have to say 'I do not think the NBA did anything it was not allowed/did not have the right to do'?  I haven't argued that the NBA did something it couldn't.  Can we get off that strawman now?  Thanks!


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> The NBA did what any other company would do to someone that damaged it's image and brand. If you did something to make your company look bad, you'd get fired.




It's a little different in the case of an owner and there are other steps that could have been taken first.



> You make it sound as if just because he said something in private, he hasn't done anything that could be considered discrimination against employees or fans. He already has a track record of discrimination against minorities. The butterfly that it has come out regarding his other business dealings, does not mean it hasn't occurred in the Clippers organization.




The butterfly of the matter is that we don't _know _he did anything.  You can't convict someone cuz they look like they did it, you need the butterflies to prove that they did.  In this case, those butterflies aren't there.

And, for the record, the butterfly is that I have said I believe he did what those folks that sued him said he did.  There's no proof outside of what they _said_, though, and hearsay should never be enough to 'convict' someone.



> There's a special place in hell for people like you, you monster!




Does it get ESPN?



> They are bound by contracts. They may want to leave, and I think one of the Clippers' players said as much, but he has a contract. NPR had some legal guy on there talking about how that was a possibility if he had something about hostile work environment or something like that. So yeah, they can want to leave, but they are restricted by their contracts. Just like Sterling is bound by his contract.




Bro?  Players refuse to play until they're traded from time to time.  Plus this could easily be considered a special case by the NBA and NBPA.



> Of course it's not a valid reason on it's own. Taken with everything else, it's just another notch in the boot him column.




When 'everything else' amounts to 'crap some people said', well, I don't think it's enough.



> Whatever society decides. That's how it generally works. We have social norms, and those that violate those norms suffer the consequences. Besides, it's not like he is being criminally charged and punished with jail time. He is getting kicked out of a group. It happens all the time. You can see it in school kids. All these social cliques have similar rules and consequences. You do something that violates the group's rules, yo get ostracized from it.




That it happens does not make it right.  Social norms have also been responsible for some terrible stuff, Adolf.



> He has done racist things. Look at his troubles with his real estate stuff and discriminating against minorities. You can't just take what he said in the phone call and quarantine it. It's not like this guy is a racist, except when he is dealing with the Clippers. He hates black people renting in Beverly hills, but he loves black people when it has to do with basketball, unless his girlfriend brings them to a basketball game, then he hates them, unless they are players, but he might hate the other employees if they are black, unless they come to the game as a paying fan, etc.




dood, as far as we know he didn't _do _anything.  He was accused, not convicted.  He was never ordered to even pay anyone compensation of any sort ... cuz he settled.  There is no proof whatsoever that he ever discriminated against an employee or customer in his NBA business - something people continue to avoid discussing for some reason.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (May 1, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It's a little different in the case of an owner and there are other steps that could have been taken first.



It's not really any different. You embarrass you company, you get kicked out of the company. He embarrassed the NBA, he is getting kicked out. Sure, they could have done other things, but they don't have to. It's their choice.  


> The butterfly of the matter is that we don't _know _he did anything.  You can't convict someone cuz they look like they did it, you need the butterflies to prove that they did.  In this case, those butterflies aren't there.



Then it's good he isn't being convicted. Then again, the NBA doesn't convict anyone. It makes business decision and it has made one based on the evidence they have. From what I heard on NPR, this guy admitted to the commissioner it was him saying those things.


> And, for the record, the butterfly is that I have said I believe he did what those folks that sued him said he did.  There's no proof outside of what they _said_, though, and hearsay should never be enough to 'convict' someone.



Well, that we know of, but I'm betting there was enough proof to convict him, which is why he settled instead of going to court.


> Does it get ESPN?



Nope, Fight Pass.


> Bro?  Players refuse to play until they're traded from time to time.  Plus this could easily be considered a special case by the NBA and NBPA.



It could, but the fact is they still have contracts. The guys that refuse to play until they get traded may also have something in their contracts. Otherwise, they are probably losing money, and they can't play for another team.


> When 'everything else' amounts to 'crap some people said', well, I don't think it's enough.



Sure, and if it was just this, I'd say, maybe you got a point. However, this guy has a history of this stuff. It's not something that is recent either. And those two incidents aren't the only ones. So yeah, when so many people say you've said or done something to them for so long, there may be something to it.


> That it happens does not make it right.  Social norms have also been responsible for some terrible stuff, Adolf.



Well, technically Adolf changed the social norm, and not everyone believed it was right. Some just followed it out of fear. In the case of the NBA and this guy, yeah, no one is getting killed. I'm pretty sure there is a difference somewhere in there. 


> dood, as far as we know he didn't _do _anything.  He was accused, not convicted.  He was never ordered to even pay anyone compensation of any sort ... cuz he settled.  There is no proof whatsoever that he ever discriminated against an employee or customer in his NBA business - something people continue to avoid discussing for some reason.



Right, because he settled. I'm pretty sure if there was no proof, he wouldn't have settled.


----------



## Umbran (May 1, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Then we do not have freedom of speech and we need to stop pretending we do.




Who is this "we"?  You're the only one here who seems to be operating under the misapprehension.  

And that's okay, because freedom as you seem to want it - freedom to speak without any repercussions - cannot truly exist.  If you speak, act, or otherwise express yourself, and you are then protected from repercussions, that means *everyone else* is restricted in their speech, as they cannot act to express themselves in response.  It becomes "first speaker" freedom, not overall freedom.  

Instead, it is simple - as private citizens, you get to express yourself, and I get to express myself.  Sterling expressed himself, and the NBA, collectively, expressed themselves.  What's the problem?  



> Yup, advertisers are gonna stop doing business .._._ with _his _team.  You know, the one _he _owns.  They didn't threaten to stop spending money with The Heat or even The Lakers (who, coincidentally, play in the same facility as The Clippers), they said they'd stop spending their money with Sterling's team.  That's a singular impact.




The NBA does revenue sharing, so an impact to the Clippers is not localized to that team alone.  And the Clippers are in the Top-10 for game attendance, so if they are heavily impacted, that matters to others in the league.



> Interesting but not accurate.  Here's a simple test: Without looking any names up, give me the name of 5 NBA owners.  Now give me the names of 5 NBA players.  Tell me who, exactly, has the most impact in a public facing way?




Who stipulated that the only issue was obviously public-facing impact?   While the PR portion is considerable, the NBA and the Players Association are probably also concerned with internal impact on the players themselves, and on the business operations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 1, 2014)

> From what I heard on NPR, this guy admitted to the commissioner it was him saying those things.



Multiple news outlets have currently reported his admission to the commish.

As for the settlement vs proof debate, it is possible that someone will settle even if innocent- pretty much the definition of what happens in a nuisance suit- and it may have been the decision of his insurance company to settle.  Some insurance policies are written so that if the InsCo recommends settlement and you decide to fight, you are no longer covered for the events in litigation- you're 100% exposed to whatever liability may be assessed.

However, this guy has a widely reported pattern of getting into the same kind of race-based landlord-tenant disputes.  Where there is smoke...


----------



## Umbran (May 1, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You can't convict someone cuz they look like they did it, you need the butterflies to prove that they did.




This isn't a criminal case.  The burden of proof required is not comparable to court proceedings.  

If Sterling wanted greater protection from his own jerkitude, he should have arranged for it within the rules of his business arrangements.  If he didn't want to be subject to the decisions of the organization, he should have sold the team.  

Basically, he set up the situation himself.  Why should he be protected from his own bad decisions?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

goldomark said:


> What does it change?




Private conversations do not indicate public behavior/



> It doesn't make his comment less racist.




And I never argued that it did.  Straman says he's sad you're beating him up like this.



> It is probably protected more in Canada than in the US. The US Constitution in the only protects against guberment interference. The Charter of Rights in Canada protects free speech:




Umm ... no.  Comics can't do their act in Canadia.  



> Hate speech is an exception in Canada, but who would want to protect hate speech?




Nobody.  Hate speech isn't the issue here.  You wanted to know why I say that the fact that his remarks were made in a private setting makes a difference, well, this is it.  What he said to one person was not hate speech.  It was racist, wrong and disgusting but it wasn't meant to incite anything nor was it made to sway anyone's opinion about anything.  People should be able to say _anything _they want to in a private setting.  We don't need thought police.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> It's not really any different. You embarrass you company, you get kicked out of the company. He embarrassed the NBA, he is getting kicked out. Sure, they could have done other things, but they don't have to. It's their choice.




Yup, and I've never argued it wasn't.



> Then it's good he isn't being convicted. Then again, the NBA doesn't convict anyone. It makes business decision and it has made one based on the evidence they have. From what I heard on NPR, this guy admitted to the commissioner it was him saying those things.




Oh pedantry, how I love thee.  Turns of phrase are just that.

At any rate, yes, he admitted to saying things in a private conversation that had nothing to do with his business.



> Well, that we know of, but I'm betting there was enough proof to convict him, which is why he settled instead of going to court.




That's an assumption and nothing more.  Dangerous, too, as people often plead to crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid worse jail time if they lose the court case.  Companies also settle when they're losing too much money in court costs.  



> Nope, Fight Pass.




Hmm ... I'll consider it.



> It could, but the fact is they still have contracts. The guys that refuse to play until they get traded may also have something in their contracts. Otherwise, they are probably losing money, and they can't play for another team.




Well since you wanna base everything on assumptions, I'll do the same:  The NBA and NBPA would work out an exemption agreement with Clippers  players.  



> Sure, and if it was just this, I'd say, maybe you got a point. However, this guy has a history of this stuff. It's not something that is recent either. And those two incidents aren't the only ones. So yeah, when so many people say you've said or done something to them for so long, there may be something to it.




He has a history of being accused of this stuff.  There's no proof to any of it anywhere.  Again, a phone conversation isn't the same thing as preventing people from purchasing tickets or unfair hiring practices.

And, again, I agree he's a racist.  So what?



> Well, technically Adolf changed the social norm, and not everyone believed it was right. Some just followed it out of fear. In the case of the NBA and this guy, yeah, no one is getting killed. I'm pretty sure there is a difference somewhere in there.




I accept your concession.  



> Right, because he settled. I'm pretty sure if there was no proof, he wouldn't have settled.




Not necessarily true.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Who is this "we"?  You're the only one here who seems to be operating under the misapprehension.
> 
> And that's okay, because freedom as you seem to want it - freedom to speak without any repercussions - cannot truly exist.  If you speak, act, or otherwise express yourself, and you are then protected from repercussions, that means *everyone else* is restricted in their speech, as they cannot act to express themselves in response.  It becomes "first speaker" freedom, not overall freedom.
> 
> Instead, it is simple - as private citizens, you get to express yourself, and I get to express myself.  Sterling expressed himself, and the NBA, collectively, expressed themselves.  What's the problem?




No problem.  I simply don't like the way we pretend.



> The NBA does revenue sharing, so an impact to the Clippers is not localized to that team alone.  And the Clippers are in the Top-10 for game attendance, so if they are heavily impacted, that matters to others in the league.




Yup.  Did it matter yet?  Nope.  Again, I'm not saying the NBA didn't have reason or right.



> Who stipulated that the only issue was obviously public-facing impact?   While the PR portion is considerable, the NBA and the Players Association are probably also concerned with internal impact on the players themselves, and on the business operations.




The players drive the entire damned industry.  Pretending what they say and do doesn't matter as much as what the owners say and do is just silly.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 1, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Multiple news outlets have currently reported his admission to the commish.
> 
> As for the settlement vs proof debate, it is possible that someone will settle even if innocent- pretty much the definition of what happens in a nuisance suit- and it may have been the decision of his insurance company to settle.  Some insurance policies are written so that if the InsCo recommends settlement and you decide to fight, you are no longer covered for the events in litigation- you're 100% exposed to whatever liability may be assessed.
> 
> However, this guy has a widely reported pattern of getting into the same kind of race-based landlord-tenant disputes.  Where there is smoke...




I was hoping you'd chime in on that, Danny.  Thanks.  Anyhoo, we do differ a bit.  I don't think it's ever ok to damn someone because of an assumption you made about them.  I fully believe he's a racist but I have _no _proof that he allowed that to impact any of his business ventures.  I _believe _he allowed it to impact his real estate business but I've seen literally nothing showing that his NBA business was impacted even a little.  Again, he wasn't telling some paying customer they weren't welcome, he was telling someone who he'd prefer they refrain from bringing to the games on tickets _he _paid for.  



Umbran said:


> This isn't a criminal case.  The burden of proof required is not comparable to court proceedings.




That's my problem.  We too quickly damn people just because it makes us feel better.  Nothing that happened to him would stand up in court because he did _nothing_ illegal.  There's no proof of any wrongdoing on his part aside from something he _said _in a _private - as in not business related -_ conversation.



> If Sterling wanted greater protection from his own jerkitude, he should have arranged for it within the rules of his business arrangements.  If he didn't want to be subject to the decisions of the organization, he should have sold the team.
> 
> Basically, he set up the situation himself.  Why should he be protected from his own bad decisions?




He set up his own set up?  A private conversation was recorded - unless you honestly believe he knew about it.

Anyhoo, he _said _something and _did _nothing.  To me, there's a vast difference between thought and deed - and thank god I'm not totally alone in that.  If they were one and the same - like ya'all wanna see it here - then most of us would be on death row for thinking about strangling that b-hole at work who microwaved that fish for 10 minutes.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (May 1, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Oh pedantry, how I love thee.  Turns of phrase are just that.



Hold on a second - is Captain Pedant complaining about my pendantry?


----------



## Kramodlog (May 1, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Private conversations do not indicate public behavior/



Except they were made public. 



> And I never argued that it did.  Straman says he's sad you're beating him up like this.



Strawman like it!



> Umm ... no.  Comics can't do their act in Canadia.



Thank god!



> Nobody.  Hate speech isn't the issue here.  You wanted to know why I say that the fact that his remarks were made in a private setting makes a difference, well, this is it.  What he said to one person was not hate speech.  It was racist, wrong and disgusting but it wasn't meant to incite anything nor was it made to sway anyone's opinion about anything.  People should be able to say _anything _they want to in a private setting.  We don't need thought police.



The police wasn't involve, like you pointed out to Umbran, maybe the US Constitution doesn't garanty freedom.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 1, 2014)

awww... he can't go to games anymore... oh boo hoo hoo.
You want to punish the guy in a meaningful way? TAKE AWAY HIS TEAM.
"Yep, you were such an (donkey) that we are revoking your franchise entirely. Your franchise will be sold, the profits will go to the current team members and staff, and you are out, permanently and forever. In the event that there are no buyers, the players will be free agents within the league, and the team disbanded permanently--the team name will be retired in disgrace. YOU will be responsible for all loss of revenue to the city, and fulfilling all contracts and recriminations for the losses as if you had broken those contracts (which you effectively have)."
THAT would make a statement.


----------



## Kramodlog (May 1, 2014)

Why shouldn't he get the profits if the teamhis sold?


----------



## Umbran (May 1, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> awww... he can't go to games anymore... oh boo hoo hoo.




It is a bit more than that.  While he still owns it, he can't interact with it, even on a business level.  He doesn't get a say, for example, in who plays on the team, or on other staffing decisions, or on business decisions.  He becomes like a silent partner, and all decisions go to the other managers of the team.



> You want to punish the guy in a meaningful way? TAKE AWAY HIS TEAM.




That's beyond the direct powers of the Commissioner.  He did say he was going to try to get the board to force a sale of the team.  As much as you say it might make a statement, legally, they can't take the profits from that sale, or make him responsible for losses to the city.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 1, 2014)

> I believe he allowed it to impact his real estate business but I've seen literally nothing showing that his NBA business was impacted even a little.




There is no evidence that, up to this point, he had actively kept minorities from attending games as paying customers in the standard seats or buying merch, no.

However, his words to his GF imply he may have exerted more control over their access to the luxury suites.  Doing that for his own personal suites is legal.  If he prevented minorities from buying luxury suites or charged them higher rates for the privilige (not yet even alleged, just a hypothetical), though, that's discriminatory.  And it probably wouldn't have had a negative impact on the Clippers' bottom line- scarce luxury items tend to sell, even if you discriminate against potential buyers.

And barring even that, once the words came out, the reaction of the advertisers withdrawing sponsorship and the players threatening a league-wide walkout _during the playoffs_?  THAT is definitely an economic impact the other owners and commissioner could not ignore.


----------



## Janx (May 1, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Anyhoo, he _said _something and _did _nothing.  To me, there's a vast difference between thought and deed - and thank god I'm not totally alone in that.  If they were one and the same - like ya'all wanna see it here - then most of us would be on death row for thinking about strangling that b-hole at work who microwaved that fish for 10 minutes.




But he did do something.  He directed this woman to not bring Magic Johnson specifically because he did not want a black man to be seen with a white woman or because he did not want to give greater public exposure to a black man (likely a combination) because who ever sits in the seats he paid for, gets camera exposure/PR.

Further, these weren't his private thoughts that only a telepath can hear.  These were his spoken orders to somebody, which no doubt he intended to keep private.  However, the difference between your private thoughts and your private communications is whether somebody exposes you or not.

this is is why you NEVER write down your murder-the-whole-school ideas in the Journal they make you keep in English classs.  it's why you never email your boss what you think of the client, because that email WILL get forwarded to somebody who objects.

the key thing that keeps society behaved is blow-back for our private actions when they are eventually revealed.  It takes a large correction to make an example of this rich racist to show other people what happens when they misbehave.

It's certainly more in proportion for response-to-wrongness than the brutal beating a white guy got when his car hit a black kid who illegally jaywalked.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 1, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> awww... he can't go to games anymore... oh boo hoo hoo.
> You want to punish the guy in a meaningful way? TAKE AWAY HIS TEAM.



As I understand it they just about did.  It's not just that he can't go to games, he can't even participate in making any decisions about the team.  He can collect profits from it.  That's all.  It seems that the only reason they didn't do more to him is because the league constitution doesn't allow anything beyond that - unless he's not actually paying his bills regarding the team, and that's just not relevant to the issue at the moment.  And yet there's not a company around at this point who's going to want to associate themselves with him.  The guy's now poisonous.  And if he insists on retaining ownership he won't have a single corporate sponsor or partner who'll touch him - and the players would all just walk out anyway which would then possibly enable the league to force the sale (can't say for sure as the league constitution is not public).

But that's likely enough to ban him for life.  People don't generally own major sports franchises because they want or need the profits.  They own the teams because they're a bigtime status symbol.  But for him, now, it's an albatross.  While it theoritically might be a profitable business the real point in owning it is gone forever.  Even if he still wanted the team, the team office, the NBA, the players, the fans, the freakin' US president all want him gone.  He doesn't strike me as the type to fight that tidal wave of ill will.  He'll sell.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 2, 2014)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> As I understand it they just about did.  It's not just that he can't go to games, he can't even participate in making any decisions about the team.  He can collect profits from it.  That's all.  It seems that the only reason they didn't do more to him is because the league constitution doesn't allow anything beyond that - unless he's not actually paying his bills regarding the team, and that's just not relevant to the issue at the moment.  And yet there's not a company around at this point who's going to want to associate themselves with him.  The guy's now poisonous.  And if he insists on retaining ownership he won't have a single corporate sponsor or partner who'll touch him - and the players would all just walk out anyway which would then possibly enable the league to force the sale (can't say for sure as the league constitution is not public).
> 
> But that's likely enough to ban him for life.  People don't generally own major sports franchises because they want or need the profits.  They own the teams because they're a bigtime status symbol.  But for him, now, it's an albatross.  While it theoritically might be a profitable business the real point in owning it is gone forever.  Even if he still wanted the team, the team office, the NBA, the players, the fans, the freakin' US president all want him gone.  He doesn't strike me as the type to fight that tidal wave of ill will.  He'll sell.



Good.
Thank you for that clarification.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 2, 2014)

Janx said:


> But he did do something.  He directed this woman to not bring Magic Johnson specifically because he did not want a black man to be seen with a white woman or because he did not want to give greater public exposure to a black man (likely a combination) because who ever sits in the seats he paid for, gets camera exposure/PR.
> 
> Further, these weren't his private thoughts that only a telepath can hear.  These were his spoken orders to somebody, which no doubt he intended to keep private.  However, the difference between your private thoughts and your private communications is whether somebody exposes you or not.
> 
> ...




I've said all I can really say but there's a few things here I want to clear up:

First, the woman in question is a minority, not white.

Second, he never ordered her to do anything, he requested.

Third, the seats in question were _his_.  He paid for them so he certainly can decide who he wants to sit in them.

Fourth, he never prevented any of her guests from attending a game.


----------



## billd91 (May 2, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I've said all I can really say but there's a few things here I want to clear up:
> 
> First, the woman in question is a minority, not white.
> 
> ...




Request/order - that's a nitpick. He really did both based on the recordings I've heard. He told her flat out that he didn't want her broadcasting that she's associating with black people on her Instagram account. In their argument he turned his problem with her associating with black people into her problem. *She* was the one causing the problem because *she* was the one arguing with him and making him feel bad. Oh, boo hoo.

The funny thing is - he didn't want her broadcasting that she associates with black people because of what people will think and say about it. And here everybody is, thinking and saying things about his low character because he *doesn't* want her to doing that. Irony 1, Donald Sterling 0.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 5, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Request/order - that's a nitpick. He really did both based on the recordings I've heard. He told her flat out that he didn't want her broadcasting that she's associating with black people on her Instagram account. In their argument he turned his problem with her associating with black people into her problem. *She* was the one causing the problem because *she* was the one arguing with him and making him feel bad. Oh, boo hoo.
> 
> The funny thing is - he didn't want her broadcasting that she associates with black people because of what people will think and say about it. And here everybody is, thinking and saying things about his low character because he *doesn't* want her to doing that. Irony 1, Donald Sterling 0.




It's another 'say vs do' situation.  He said a lot, sure, but in the end he never prevented her from _doing_ anything.


----------



## Umbran (May 5, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> It's another 'say vs do' situation.  He said a lot, sure, but in the end he never prevented her from _doing_ anything.




You seem to assert that speaking something is not an action.  If it isn't an action, if speaking doesn't count for anything, why is it so darned important that we be prevented from the government trying to stop us from doing it?  Why do we care about freedom of speech if speaking doesn't matter?

Words have power.  Speaking is an action, and what one says can matter.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 5, 2014)

Umbran said:


> You seem to assert that speaking something is not an action.  If it isn't an action, if speaking doesn't count for anything, why is it so darned important that we be prevented from the government trying to stop us from doing it?  Why do we care about freedom of speech if speaking doesn't matter?
> 
> Words have power.  Speaking is an action, and what one says can matter.




Cuz here it's in the presentation.  Folks are suggesting that what he said actually _did _something.  It didn't and that, in this case, matters.  He said he didn't want certain people to come to games on tickets that were his.  That's _all that happened_.  People are equating his words with an action that _never occurred_.  That's why it matters in this case.  Had he actually _done _anything we wouldn't even be discussing this now because I'd not have seen anything wrong with what was done.

In certain cases word can definitely translate into deed. This, though, is not a case where that happened.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 5, 2014)

What the words did do is reveal a business owner as someone who has a profound lack of respect for most of his employees, a large percentage of his customers, and the employees & customers of the league of his co-oligopolists, which damaged his brand and the oligopoly's brand, and thus cost powerful people money.

IOW, he pissed off a lot of people, some with a lot of money.  It could have irreparably damaged the league.

So people up & down the economic ladder booted him in the butt.


----------



## billd91 (May 5, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Cuz here it's in the presentation.  Folks are suggesting that what he said actually _did _something.  It didn't and that, in this case, matters.  He said he didn't want certain people to come to games on tickets that were his.  That's _all that happened_.  People are equating his words with an action that _never occurred_.  That's why it matters in this case.  Had he actually _done _anything we wouldn't even be discussing this now because I'd not have seen anything wrong with what was done.
> 
> In certain cases word can definitely translate into deed. This, though, is not a case where that happened.





That Sterling's girlfriend didn't do anything but argue with him is immaterial. He's being held accountable for what he did - tell his girlfriend to employ racist discrimination directed against black people. He certainly did that.

Are you saying that someone shouldn't suffer the consequences of honestly saying "All Jews should be stuffed in concentration camps and murdered" or "All black people should shipped back to Africa where they belong" just because they don't actually do those things? Those are more extreme statements than telling some woman not to post pictures of herself with black people on Instagram or bring them to games to sit with her, but the principle is the same. Saying something racist, in certain environments, draws a reaction and consequences will ensue. And that's perfectly fair. Expose yourself publicly as a d-bag and people won't want to associate with you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 5, 2014)

> Expose yourself publicly as a d-bag and people won't want to associate with you.




Or- more accurately in this case- get publicly exposed as a d-bag and people won't want to associate with you.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 6, 2014)

billd91 said:


> That Sterling's girlfriend didn't do anything but argue with him is immaterial. He's being held accountable for what he did - tell his girlfriend to employ racist discrimination directed against black people. He certainly did that.
> 
> Are you saying that someone shouldn't suffer the consequences of honestly saying "All Jews should be stuffed in concentration camps and murdered" or "All black people should shipped back to Africa where they belong" just because they don't actually do those things? Those are more extreme statements than telling some woman not to post pictures of herself with black people on Instagram or bring them to games to sit with her, but the principle is the same. Saying something racist, in certain environments, draws a reaction and consequences will ensue. And that's perfectly fair. Expose yourself publicly as a d-bag and people won't want to associate with you.




Have you ever said you'd like to kill/throttle/punch someone?  If so, I suspect you'll be turning yourself in to the authorities rather soon so I won't expect a response.  

Srsly, there is a massive difference between saying/thinking and doing.  We all know it cuz we've all lived it.  Why we can't apply that to others is beyond me - and appalling.  There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone was actually discriminated against.  None.  All we've got is some guy telling some girl who he pays to be seen with him who he doesn't want her to take to watch games his team plays in seats he pays for.  Nothing more.

He's a piece of garbage, sure, but he doesn't deserve to be damned based solely on assumptive extrapolation.


----------



## billd91 (May 6, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> He's a piece of garbage, sure, but he doesn't deserve to be damned based solely on assumptive extrapolation.




You may think so, but you aren't a member of the organization in question - which gets to set its own rules for membership and punish members for the behavior that, in turn, reflects on the group.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 6, 2014)

> Have you ever said you'd like to kill/throttle/punch someone? If so, I suspect you'll be turning yourself in to the authorities rather soon so I won't expect a response.



Completely different standard, completely different set of responders.

He said words.  The words in question were found to be repugnant enough that his employees, business partners, and customers united to decide he wasn't worth associating with in this business venture.  And as we saw from Marge Schott's experience, this has become the standard.

He spoke freely, and the market spoke back.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Srsly, there is a massive difference between saying/thinking and doing.




Yes, but as several folks have pointed out, he was doing.  He wasn't just saying, "I don't like African Americans".  He was actively making a request of his girlfriend to not take pictures with them, or take them to games where she'd be seen in public with them.  He was trying to influence someone else's behavior based on his own preferences.  He was trying to get someone else to discriminate on his behalf.



> He's a piece of garbage, sure, but he doesn't deserve to be damned based solely on assumptive extrapolation.




Have you considered the possibility that he deserves to be banned for being a piece of garbage?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 6, 2014)

billd91 said:


> You may think so, but you aren't a member of the organization in question - which gets to set its own rules for membership and punish members for the behavior that, in turn, reflects on the group.




And, again, I've never said that the NBA couldn't do what it did.  His behavior, however, said nothing about the group.  I mean, that's the issue here.  One man doesn't speak for every team and nothing he said had anything to do with NBA business whatsoever.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Completely different standard, completely different set of responders.
> 
> He said words.  The words in question were found to be repugnant enough that his employees, business partners, and customers united to decide he wasn't worth associating with in this business venture.  And as we saw from Marge Schott's experience, this has become the standard.
> 
> He spoke freely, and the market spoke back.




Meh, the market threatened to speak (er, one segment of it anyway) and they reacted before that was allowed to happen.  

And no, it's not different at all.  If we're to believe it's ok to punish people for thought then that stretches across the board.  How come it's ok for you to think or say heinous crap but not for him?  You better than him or something?



Umbran said:


> Yes, but as several folks have pointed out, he was doing.  He wasn't just saying, "I don't like African Americans".  He was actively making a request of his girlfriend to not take pictures with them, or take them to games where she'd be seen in public with them.  He was trying to influence someone else's behavior based on his own preferences.  He was trying to get someone else to discriminate on his behalf.




And those several folks have been wrong the entire time.  He _did _nothing.  He _asked _someone to do something and did so _without condition_.  He was voicing a desire and that's all.  He never once said 'if you bring Magic with you I'll have you both thrown out'.  He never told her 'if you post another picture with X on Instagram I'm never going to buy you anything again'.  

And girlfriend?  Let's be real bro, she's a paid consort and he was conducting business with her.  Right or wrong that's what this was.  And, again, his tickets, his seats - who says he can't try to determine who's allowed to sit there?  Tell ya what, next time you go to a game why not post it here before you do so we can all take a vote on who you should take to sit in the seat you paid for?



> Have you considered the possibility that he deserves to be banned for being a piece of garbage?




Bad people are people, too.  Had he _done_ anything discriminatory in his NBA dealings then I'd agree.  He didn't, though.


----------



## Celebrim (May 6, 2014)

The man seems despicable, but ironically not for the incident he is being castigated for, which to be frank seems like a relatively minor failing.  His decades long behavior of actual discrimination against minority renters and in his hiring practices if anything was going to earn him a social reproach should have actually earned him a social reproach.  Instead, he was scheduled before this matter to earn a reward from the NAACP.

What I find even more appalling than the fact that a 70 year old man was jealous of his much younger girl friend flirting with black athletes is the way this has been handled.   Of the famous people who've commented on this, I find myself closest in opinion to Kareem Abdul Jabber, who has I think been just about the only voice of reason during this matter, and who seems appropriately appalled by everyone's actions and reactions to this affair.   No one has come out looking good.

The man made a private comment in a fit of emotion.  It was a comment that was not particularly nasty in and of itself, but which revealed an underlying nasty attitude.  

However, he was illegally wiretapped (per Republic of California laws) and apparently an attempt at blackmail was made.  There is every evidence he was set up.  That the person in question knowing was trying to provoke a fit of jealous rage for this purpose in order to obtain money and/or celebrity status.

Although as I said, there is every evidence that the person in question was a fairly despicable racist bit of work, no one had ever bothered to be appropriately outraged about that before until a salacious tabloid headline involving voyeurism of a 70 year old man's sexual life could be written.  There is every evidence that at least in public, the guy was smart enough to keep his opinions to himself and act cordially and even graciously toward black athletes - inviting them to his daughter's wedding, for example.  

Because of the criminal nature of the wiretapping and the blackmail attempt, none of the evidence against him is admissible in a court of law.  Yet despite that he's being subject to an attempt to hound him out of business on the basis private comment.  He's been given a lifetime ban from the NBA, but its worth noting that no actual criminal behavior or public comment has ever warranted such a severe penalty before.  Nor has sexual harassment.  Nor did the owner's prior much more severe race related incidents.  Actually discriminating against minority persons wasn't enough to gain infamy, nor is beating ones girl friend, nor is brawling on the court, nor is drug use of various kinds, nor is persistent sexual harassment of female employees, but by golly if some sexy girl gets a 70 year old man to confess you are jealous of her flirting with black athletes, why that's beyond the pale - we aren't going to tolerate that.   We'll keep doing business with a guying conspiring to keep minorities from having jobs or houses, but if he doesn't want his blackmailing girl friend flirting with atheletes well then we'll shun him from polite society.  Ok fine, but somewhere we seem to have got our priorities messed up.

There is a lot of evidence the league knew about his racism before but it never bothered him because well he had a lot of money.  Now, scandal!  We got to make pretense of doing something.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> However, he was illegally wiretapped (per Republic of California laws) and apparently an attempt at blackmail was made.




Cite from a reliable source, please.  As of Friday, her lawyers were saying that he knew the recording was being made, which would make it legal in CA, and there seems to me no news that she's been charged with the crime.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 6, 2014)

> Meh, the market threatened to speak (er, one segment of it anyway) and they reacted before that was allowed to happen.



No, the market DID speak.  Actually, more than one did:

1) the Clippers were losing sponsors within 24 hours; the NBA itself was threatened with losing sponsors

2) the market of employees spoke and said there would be a universal walkout.  There is no evidence the threat would not be carried out.

3) fans- including season ticket holders- were threatening boycotts.



> And no, it's not different at all. If we're to believe it's ok to punish people for thought then that stretches across the board. How come it's ok for you to think or say heinous crap but not for him? You better than him or something?




Not thought, but speech, bolstered by past action.

I think it is 100% OK for him to say whatever he wants, just as I do.  I suffer no illusions that I might not face a backlash, as he indeed did.

And I have experienced backlash for speaking.  On this very site, I made a statement that was offensive to @1B people.  That wasn't my intent- I posted in haste and left out a few key words, didn't proofread, and immediately turned off my machine.

When next I logged back in 3 days later, I believe it was Umbran had left me a note that I was on a 2-3 day ban.  I didn't say what I intended, but I absolutely said what got me in trouble.



> Because of the criminal nature of the wiretapping and the blackmail attempt, none of the evidence against him is admissible in a court of law




Regardless of the open question of the legality of the method by which the words got out there, he's not being tried in criminal court.  He's being tried in the court of public opinion, the marketplace of ideas.  He's being tried by the bylaws of a private organization.

 So that's irrelevant.



> He's been given a lifetime ban from the NBA, but its worth noting that no actual criminal behavior or public comment has ever warranted such a severe penalty before




Marge Schott's ban was only a couple years, true, but her offense was the same.  And that was in an era more tolerant of racist speech.


----------



## Celebrim (May 6, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Cite from a reliable source, please.  As of Friday, her lawyers were saying that he knew the recording was being made, which would make it legal in CA.




Well, that is going to make it a he said/she said situation.   I happen to have worked for a considerable length of time at a software firm that writes call recording software - "Your call may be monitored for quality assurance purposes."  Unless they have evidence to his assent to this particular conversation being taped, the burden of proof is on them.  I'd certainly not consider her lawyers a reliable source in and of themselves, and the defense they've offered - that he'd consented to be taped on general principle because she was acting as his secretary and he had trouble remembering things - is legally questionable at best.  Let's just say that I think the fact she's 'lawyered up' is pretty good evidence that the question of wiretapping is certainly an open one.

I'm not sure what you would think is a reliable source, as pretty much everything out there seems to be opinion pieces, but for what it is worth the law blogs out there seem to believe its pretty obvious that the tape isn't admissible in court under California law.

Again, I concur with Kareem Abdul Jabber's assessment, who has the advantage over me of knowing the man.  Barring the introduction of evidence to the contrary, taping a private conversation and releasing it without consent is pretty obviously wire tapping under California law, and it's fairly obvious that this is a private conversation.  There is no evidence he was speaking in front of a crowded room or any other mitigating factor.

For the record, I'm opposed to 'two way consent' laws precisely for this sort of reason.  If a person hears something, they in my opinion have a fair right to prove that they heard it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 6, 2014)

From ESPN:



> On Monday of this week, Stiviano met with NBA investigator Anders and verified that she and Sterling were indeed the ones on the tape, which was recorded in September. She told them that *Sterling knew he was being recorded and that they often taped conversations because Sterling, who sources say has been battling cancer in recent years, forgets things, *and explained that part of her job was to help coach him on his image.




(emphasis mine)

If true, the tapes are admissible in any court.


----------



## Umbran (May 6, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Unless they have evidence to his assent to this particular conversation being taped, the burden of proof is on them.




Well, there's no burden of proof unless she is accused - and he doesn't seem to have accused her.  Now, maybe he's decided not to because it would make him look petty at this point, but on the other hand, if the the recording were illegal, then redistributing it would also be illegal, and all the news outlets would have obtained it illegally.  They'd be open to criminal charges and lawsuit for damages.  So, if it were illegal, he could likely shut everyone up.

But he hasn't.  He hasn't made the accusation, and he quickly admitted that he said those things.  While he might fight the NBA, he's not fighting her, apparently.  How is this not suggestive that the recording was legal, and that she's well-covered on the matter?



> Let's just say that I think the fact she's 'lawyered up' is pretty good evidence that the question of wiretapping is certainly an open one.




Who, when dealing with a billionaire on such a matter, would not engage a lawyer? 



> I'm not sure what you would think is a reliable source, as pretty much everything out there seems to be opinion pieces




Opinion pieces are not reliable, as they are, be definition, opinions and not necessarily based on any evidence.  Something from a major news outlet that at least claims to have evidence would be preferable.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (May 6, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Let's just say that I think the fact she's 'lawyered up' is pretty good evidence that the question of wiretapping is certainly an open one.



Actually, she lawyered up because Sterling's wife sued her. This was before the tape came out. If I remember correctly, the wife is suing this girl for some house Sterling gave her and some money. So her having a lawyer doesn't have much to do with the tapes.


----------



## Celebrim (May 6, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Well, there's no burden of proof unless she is accused - and he doesn't seem to have accused her.  Now, maybe he's decided not to because it would make him look petty at this point, but on the other hand, if the the recording were illegal, then redistributing it would also be illegal, and all the news outlets would have obtained it illegally.  They'd be open to criminal charges and lawsuit for damages.  So, if it were illegal, he could likely shut everyone up.




Based on his past patterns of legal behavior, he's likely weighing the cost/benefits of a much more public law suit than his past ones have been.  The value of the Clippers as an organization is at an all time high right now.  He's seems likely to exit this situation at a profit, which would favor not rocking the boat further.   



> How is this not suggestive that the recording was legal, and that she's well-covered on the matter?




His past legal actions are always motivated toward profit or minimizing damages.  He's probably calculating that he gets more money by not suing her on terms he'd likely win, but which would increase public disfavor.   He still has to divest himself of his property in the Clippers while its still valuable.   While the Clippers are winning games is not the time to start up a counter-suit against her, the media, or the NBA.


----------



## Celebrim (May 6, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If true, the tapes are admissible in any court.




Even if that was true, not necessarily.  Blanket consent to tape everything that was said like that would be very hard to prove, especially in the case of an elderly person who was prone to 'forgetting things'.   His lawyers will very likely be able to paint a picture of someone taking advantages of a ailing elderly man, and point out reasonably that the fact she had taped conversations in the past by no means implied that he had consented to this conversation being taped much less that under those terms that she was the legal owner of the tape and could dispose of it as she saw fit.

No, the fact that charges haven't been pressed yet IMO has more to do with the financial calculations involved in owning a team still in the playoffs than the relative merits of the case.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 6, 2014)

Under the rules of evidence, all she'd probably have to prove is a pattern of past recording on his say-so.  If he himself ordered the practice because he is "forgetful", it works against him- he could very well have known that particular conversation was being taped and forgotten.

And all she'd have to do to prove this is produce more tapes.

If I were a betting man, I'd say those tapes contain information Sterling does not want to get out.  He won't want to produce them.  That means his lawyer's most probable response to an assertion on her part that he authorized the recordings is stipulating that the tapes were made on his authorization (conceding the point), or, if he fights, and must produce the tapes, he'll insist on an in camera review of the tapes AND a gag order.  In all likelihood, only tapes with sensitive business info will be protected by a gag order- those containing more inflammatory speech won't.

That means more flak for being a racist.

So, the most probable court tactic by his lawyer will be stipulation to the assertion that the tapes were made because he asked that they be made.

IOW, admissible in any court.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 7, 2014)

Celebrim said:


> Snipped tons of good stuff




Glad to see I'm not alone - thanks for that very well put opinion.



Umbran said:


> Cite from a reliable source, please.  As of Friday, her lawyers were saying that he knew the recording was being made, which would make it legal in CA, and there seems to me no news that she's been charged with the crime.




Really bro?  You're smarter than that.  What, exactly, do you think her lawyers are gonna say?  That she illegally taped the conversation, baited him into saying the stuff to then use it for blackmail?

Newsflash: Most criminals convicted have seen their lawyers say they're innocent.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, the market DID speak.  Actually, more than one did:
> 
> 1) the Clippers were losing sponsors within 24 hours; the NBA itself was threatened with losing sponsors
> 
> ...




Many actions were proposed but few were actually taken.



> Not thought, but speech, bolstered by past action.




Speech and thought are the same as neither is an action.  



> I think it is 100% OK for him to say whatever he wants, just as I do.  I suffer no illusions that I might not face a backlash, as he indeed did.
> 
> And I have experienced backlash for speaking.  On this very site, I made a statement that was offensive to @1B people.  That wasn't my intent- I posted in haste and left out a few key words, didn't proofread, and immediately turned off my machine.
> 
> When next I logged back in 3 days later, I believe it was Umbran had left me a note that I was on a 2-3 day ban.  I didn't say what I intended, but I absolutely said what got me in trouble.




So did this backlash cost you any money?  Did it extend beyond this site?  Cuz with Sterling what he said in one venue cost him dearly in another, unrelated one.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 7, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> What, exactly, do you think her lawyers are gonna say?  That she illegally taped the conversation, baited him into saying the stuff to then use it for blackmail?



As discussed already, there is testimony that not only did he know the conversation was being recorded, but that it was being recorded because he ordered it to be so as part of the common practice in his environment.

Which assertion, it should be noted, he has not used any breath to refute.



> Many actions were proposed but few were actually taken.




The Clippers' sponsors bailed within 24 hours; the likely reason the other actions were not taken is that the NBA took action before the stated deadlines.  Would they have followed through?  God only knows.

But given the apparent solidarity of opposition to his continued ownership of the Clippers by the entirety of the players in the league, is it any wonder that none of the NBA owners or the operators wanted to call that bluff?



> Speech and thought are the same as neither is an action.




First of all, the law disagrees with you as to speech- it is definitely considered an "action" for which you can be held liable in civil and criminal court.

Second, as stated, this is not- so far- any kind of legal action.  This is a case of speech being reacted to with socio-economic pressure in the form of:

1) boycotts/work stoppages

2) withdrawal of association by business partners (corporate sponsors)

3) a fine and withdrawal of association by a private organization to which he belongs (the NBA)

All of which are perfectly valid responses to speech one disagrees with, regardless of setting.



> So did this backlash cost you any money?  Did it extend beyond this site?  Cuz with Sterling what he said in one venue cost him dearly in another, unrelated one.




Of course not, since this sites is, essentially, anonymous.  (In a trivial sense of the word.)

However, were I running for President or otherwise trying to increase my government security clearance, etc., it is a very real possibility that that statement could return to haunt me as I went through the vetting process.

Regardless of my own personal story, that something you do in one aspect of your life may spill over into others is simply the way things are.  You can, for instance, be refused employment because your credit rating is below a certain point.  Being a stripper in college may cost you a teaching job in your 40's.

Someone who participated in the demonstrations by the Westboro Church in Kansas might well be refused entry into a private organization in New York.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2014)

What is it you're supposed to do when you find yourself deep in a hole?  Keep digging, right?  No wait, the opposite of that.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/donald-sterling-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (May 13, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What is it you're supposed to do when you find yourself deep in a hole?  Keep digging, right?  No wait, the opposite of that.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/donald-sterling-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t1



"When he had 'those' aids..." Huh?

"What did he do? He's got aids!"

Man, this guy is amazing.


----------



## billd91 (May 13, 2014)

FYI, an editorial comment about the initial taped conversation:

Bill Maher argues for privacy


----------



## Kramodlog (May 13, 2014)

Privacy is indeed dying. Don't want to be labelled a bigot? Don't be one.

My major complaint about the panopticon that is being erected is that certain political and economic elites aren't subjected to the same surveillance most people are. 

For example, lobbying is not a bad thing per say, it is that we do not know what is being said behind closed doors and the potential deals that are made that are problematic.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> For example, lobbying is not a bad thing per say, it is that we do not know what is being said behind closed doors and the potential deals that are made that are problematic.





Of course, with our No Politics Rule, this is not really a suitable direction for the discussion.  Sorry.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (May 13, 2014)

billd91 said:


> FYI, an editorial comment about the initial taped conversation:
> 
> Bill Maher argues for privacy




I have to agree.

I'm not sure where the precise boundary of what is political and what is not political actually is so I won't comment further except to say that, at some point, do you think the USA will rediscover its Constitution?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2014)

Again, if it is true that Sterling himself ordered his conversations be taped- which he has so far not denied- privacy is not an issue here.

How the recordings became public is, of course.


----------



## billd91 (May 13, 2014)

Scrivener of Doom said:


> I have to agree.
> 
> I'm not sure where the precise boundary of what is political and what is not political actually is so I won't comment further except to say that, at some point, do you think the USA will rediscover its Constitution?




Perhaps more importantly in this case, since there aren't any governmental actions being taken here either to bug Sterling or to punish him, when will Americans ever actually adhere to the principles embodied in the Constitution? As much as we tend to bandy it about, we're actually (collectively and historically) pretty bad at practicing it.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Perhaps more importantly in this case...





Perhaps even more importantly, EN World has a No Politics rule that I already warned people about mere posts ago.

If you want to have a discussion about the US Constitution, and who it is supposed to apply to, and why, take it to another discussion board, please and thank you.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 13, 2014)

For all the talk about legal admissibility, does that matter here?

We don't know (or I don't think we know) the particulars of the agreement between the owners and the league, but, isn't that what matters?  Wouldn't this be a contract issue?  Would the league be limited by the admissibility of the recordings?

How limited or open could the contract be?  Could the league dismiss a member by majority vote of the members?  I considered this possible at first, but very quickly run into probable limitations, in that a member could not be removed for prejudicial reasons (race, religion, ethnicity, age, preference, &etc).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> For all the talk about legal admissibility, does that matter here?




At this point, no, because it is so far a case of a private organization ejecting a member based on its bylaws, not the American legal system.

At some point, one or both of the Sterlings- jointly or independently- may contest the forced sale of the Clippers in court, at which point admissibility could become an issue.  But it's one I don't think will get much traction.



> We don't know (or I don't think we know) the particulars of the agreement between the owners and the league, but, isn't that what matters?  Wouldn't this be a contract issue?  Would the league be limited by the admissibility of the recordings?




This is essentially a question of the contract the owners sign when they get approved for membership as an NBA owner.  

Almost without exception, membership in exclusive organizations include rules about causing the organizations to be viewed in a negative light.  As such, admissibility isn't generally an issue, because once it is out there in public view, the damage is done.



> How limited or open could the contract be?  Could the league dismiss a member by majority vote of the members?  I considered this possible at first, but very quickly run into probable limitations, in that a member could not be removed for prejudicial reasons (race, religion, ethnicity, age, preference, &etc).



 They can be VERY limited or open, and- believe it or not- could even be prejudicial.  LEGALLY.

However, if the membership/ownership clauses are prejudicial, the organization could be prevented from acting in the market in certain ways.

The Krewes of New Orleans are clubs that put on the parades of Mardi Gras.  Several were sued because of racist membership policies.  The courts found that they had a choice- remove the racist membership policies or stop having parades.  They chose to stop having parades.  Since them, several new Krewes have popped up to fill the void, most notably, Harry Connick, Jr.'s Krewe of Orpheus.

Were the NBA- or any other pro sports league in the USA to have prejudicial membership rules for ownership, it is a virtual guarantee that they'd be stripped of their exemptions from US antitrust laws...among other things.

This is one of the things that got the BSA to change their policy on gay scouts (though not leadership).  The BSA has all kinds of agreements with the Feds, state, and civic governments that could be voided if their discriminatory practices towards boys hadn't ended.  The same leverage is being applied to get them to change the policy at all levels of their organization.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 13, 2014)

Hi,

Thanks for the reply!

I find it very curious that what seem to be very public organizations (major league sports) have such private agreements.  That is considering the extent to which public assistance is provided: stadiums and other public infrastructure; school sports programs.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reply!
> 
> ...




And any and all of that could be jeopardized by being revealed to have discriminatory practices, since governmental agencies, etc. can- or in some cases, MUST- void contracts with discriminatory organizations.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Almost without exception, membership in exclusive organizations include rules about causing the organizations to be viewed in a negative light.  As such, admissibility isn't generally an issue, because once it is out there in public view, the damage is done.




So, if the tape were acquired illegally, the league doesn't care, though Sterling might be able to sue whoever recorded that tape for losses, yes?

That such an exercise would probably be "blood from a stone" is another question, of course....


----------



## billd91 (May 13, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reply!
> 
> ...




Yeah, it's one of those areas in which a private organization with a lot of pull manipulates the political system (and voters) to pay for major investments so the money doesn't have to come out of their own pockets. They're basically large subsidies that the local governments hope will pay off by bringing in more money in economic activity (and associated taxes) than it costs in initial outlay. It may work in some markets (like Green Bay where the faithful flock to pray at the Lambeau altar every home game during the season) but not so well in others (like Miami - with respect to the Marlins anyway with their new, expensive park, terrible ownership, and weak fanbase). That, however, doesn't usually bring them (government officials) or the public any official power within the league organization - just unofficial and indirect influence.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> So, if the tape were acquired illegally, the league doesn't care, though Sterling might be able to sue whoever recorded that tape for losses, yes?




Ye...err..well, again, if he ordered the recording, he's going to have an uphill battle winning in court against whomever did the recording.

But, like with celebrity sex tapes, he will have a suit against whomever _released_ the tapes.

Which still has us in bloodless turnip territory, since, UNLIKE the celebrity sex tape scenarios, nobody involved in the leak seems to have monetized the recordings.

In addition, the leaker could face theft charges.  Look at MLB today- they're now facing assertions that the documents they used to go after some of the people involved in the steroid/HGH etc. scandal may have been illegally obtained.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In addition, the leaker could face theft charges.




I would expect that to be difficult, insofar as a recording made legally should then be the property of the person who made it, no?  If she made the recording legally, and then handed it over of her free will, how is that theft?

Huh.  Try this.  They are his words, recorded.  And say that recording was made legally.  One legal recording does *not* imply license to reproduce or broadcast his "performance".  He might have grounds for a copyright infringement suit!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I would expect that to be difficult, insofar as a recording made legally should then be the property of the person who made it, no?  If she made the recording legally, and then handed it over of her free will, how is that theft?




Well, Sterling could argue:

1) they were made in the course of employment by one of his staff, therefore, the recordings belong to his company.

2) they were made by someone acting as his agent, and therefore, the recordings belong to Sterling.

Either would be sufficient to form the basis for a theft charge, as long as neither Sterling nor his company authorized their release.

Because, as I have often pointed out in IP threads, one of the definitions of theft is "exercising unauthorized control of the property of another."  There, it's downloading/sharing without permission; here, unauthorized release of the recordings.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 14, 2014)

billd91 said:


> FYI, an editorial comment about the initial taped conversation:
> 
> Bill Maher argues for privacy




I always hate it when I agree with him.  I should probably reassess my disgust at this point.  



billd91 said:


> Yeah, it's one of those areas in which a private organization with a lot of pull manipulates the political system (and voters) to pay for major investments so the money doesn't have to come out of their own pockets. They're basically large subsidies that the local governments hope will pay off by bringing in more money in economic activity (and associated taxes) than it costs in initial outlay. It may work in some markets (like Green Bay where the faithful flock to pray at the Lambeau altar every home game during the season) but not so well in others (like Miami - with respect to the Marlins anyway with their new, expensive park, terrible ownership, and weak fanbase). That, however, doesn't usually bring them (government officials) or the public any official power within the league organization - just unofficial and indirect influence.




For the record, the Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ye...err..well, again, if he ordered the recording, he's going to have an uphill battle winning in court against whomever did the recording.
> 
> But, like with celebrity sex tapes, he will have a suit against whomever _released_ the tapes.
> 
> ...




TMZ broke the story, I believe, and they're know for paying for dirt.  We have to look at who released it and try to figure out why as well.  The girl doesn't have her own massive stockpile of cash.  Sterling bought her Ferraris - among other things.  So my guess would be that this was gonna at least initially be about blackmail.  If that fell through for some reason or she decided to change course, well, she'd likely want some sort of compensation for her 'efforts' anyway.  The next step is selling the story to the highest bidder.  In short, the odds that she got paid are pretty high.  I wouldn't guess the amount to be a lot or anything but it is something she gained from harming him and that makes it something he could go after.

Also with how huge this is becoming there's the potential for future gains - talk show circuit, book deal, crappy movie, etc.  This woman would be nothing without this story and she could potentially make a lot of money off of it.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Because, as I have often pointed out in IP threads, one of the definitions of theft is "exercising unauthorized control of the property of another."  There, it's downloading/sharing without permission; here, unauthorized release of the recordings.




I am curious - How often is downloading/sharing without permission prosecuted as theft, rather than as copyright infringement?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I am curious - How often is downloading/sharing without permission prosecuted as theft, rather than as copyright infringement?




"Theft" is the umbrella term -the genus, if you will- for crimes involving the unauthorized use, possession or destruction of property.  There are many different crimes under the heading of theft*, and while they're often used synonymously in common conversation, each has its own distinct name & rules, distinguished by means and method.  (In fairness, some of those distinctions have been erased in law as well.)

Tl, DR: It's not prosecuted under anything but IP statutes, AFAIK.






* embezzlement, larceny, robbery, conversion, burglary, and many more.


----------



## pedr (May 14, 2014)

And the inclusion of "conversion" in the footnote indicates why an expansive use of the word "theft" can cause problems, blurring the line between acts society considers worthy of criminal sanction and that which is a matter between two parties. I remain to be convinced there's any benefit to using words developed by criminal law (like "theft" ) to describe civil disputes because it imputes a moral disapproval out of proportion to the legal classification. 

Illegally obtained recordings are potentially subject to various restrictions but it stretches the terminology to call this theft, unless the physical tapes/disks/etc were removed, and is unnecessary to achieve the aim of restricting their further dissemination or use in court, if they are determined to have been obtained improperly.

Following up Umbran's question, I'd be interested to know if there have been any criminal prosecutions of downloaders or individual uploaders in common law jurisdictions that you know of, and what US law would support such. That's distinct from prosecution of organised commercial infringers, which is based on clear and well established statutes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2014)

pedr said:


> And the inclusion of "conversion" in the footnote indicates why an expansive use of the word "theft" can cause problems, blurring the line between acts society considers worthy of criminal sanction and that which is a matter between two parties. I remain to be convinced there's any benefit to using words developed by criminal law (like "theft" ) to describe civil disputes because it imputes a moral disapproval out of proportion to the legal classification.
> 
> Illegally obtained recordings are potentially subject to various restrictions but it stretches the terminology to call this theft, unless the physical tapes/disks/etc were removed, and is unnecessary to achieve the aim of restricting their further dissemination or use in court, if they are determined to have been obtained improperly.




"Conversion" as a subclass of "theft" is _not_ an expansion- "theft" once had a specific and distinct definition, but eventually grew into an umbrella term for all kinds of unauthorized use of the property of another.  Think of "Theft" like "Homicide"- a blanket term that covers a wide variety of acts that may be criminally of civilly liable...or not actionable under law at all.

From the same online legal dictionary:



> Theft: the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use




And



> Conversion: a civil wrong (tort) in which one converts another's property to his/her own use, which is a fancy way of saying "steals." Conversion includes treating another's goods as one's own, holding onto such property which accidently comes into the convertor's (taker's) hands, or purposely giving the impression the assets belong to him/her. *This gives the true owner the right to sue for his/her own property or the value and loss of use of it, as well as going to law enforcement authorities since conversion usually includes the crime of theft.  (See: theft)*




(Emphasis mine)

And from Black's:



> Black's Law Dictionary
> Theft: is..the act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's consent...the fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking...Theft is any of the following acts done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of his property: (a) *Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property*; (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.



(Emphasis mine)

Conversion's unique, distinguishing aspect is that conversion can, in certain cases, be legal and without intent in its initiation, such as when the property is lost then found.  In those cases, the demand for return must first be made (and refused) before a civil or criminal case can be initiated. (Which is why the definition of conversion includes the qualifier "usually includes the crime of theft.")


----------



## Janx (May 14, 2014)

billd91 said:


> FYI, an editorial comment about the initial taped conversation:
> 
> Bill Maher argues for privacy




As with most things in life, there are plenty of things that are true and correct but still disagreeable with.

bill's absolutely right that you should be free to say stuff in your own house.

On the other hand, how were we to learn that Donald Sterling was a racist, if the girl didn't have a recording.  Was she going to go to the press with a "i was talking to Donald and he said..." with no proof?

If Donald only makes his racist plans in his house, then that's where the evidence is.  I certainly believe that a rich, powerful guy like Donald could exert an evil agenda in a way that looks innocent or legal.  As such, getting his words on tape may be the only way to prove it.

As I see it, there's valid points on whether to protect your privacy at home from unexpected disclosure, and there's reasons why that might be the only way to prove someone's a bad guy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2014)

Janx said:


> On the other hand, how were we to learn that Donald Sterling was a racist, if the girl didn't have a recording.




By paying attention. Here's sworn testimony from one of his employees in one of the landlord/tenant cases he settled.



> “Is she one of those black people that stink?” Sterling is quoted as asking. “Just evict the bitch.”
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/killed-sterling-racism-094500807--politics.html




He really did have a pattern, one that should have kept him out of the NBA.  But, things were different, then...


----------



## tomBitonti (May 14, 2014)

Wait, does that make trespass theft?  Is sneaking into a theater theft?  It seems to be in two ways, if both trespass and unauthorized viewing are theft.

A similar example: Unauthorized creation of a drug which is under patent.

Something which is different, at a glance: If I steal a car, the car has a described value which I'm denying the person who owns the care.  If I make batches of a drug, I haven't deprived the owner of the drug patent the value of their patent, except to the degree that I've limited their sales of the drug.  But, if I give the drug to people with very little money, that limits the lose to the patent holder.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Wait, does that make trespass theft?  Is sneaking into a theater theft?  It seems to be in two ways, if both trespass and unauthorized viewing are theft.
> 
> A similar example: Unauthorized creation of a drug which is under patent.
> 
> ...



Tresspass is a crime against rights in real property, not personal property, so strictly speaking, isn't theft.

The rest all fall into acts under the broad umbrella of theft.  They're all different enough they'd be covered under different statutes: sneaking into the movies would be tresspass and possibly some form of larceny (though unlikely); the car under GTA; the copied drug by patent law.

BTW, that you're giving the infringed-upon IP away doesn't shield you in IP cases...that you make a profit is not an element of the crime.

Part of the reason why many modern legal systems have those broad theft statutes is because it makes prosecution easier.  Under the old common law, if you charged someone with robbery when they had actually committed burglary or larceny, they could walk on the charge, at least temporarily.  With the umbrella style theft statutes, you charge theft, and as long as their actions meet one of the definitions, you're golden.

Lest you think its all cut & dried, consider robbery.  In most legal codes, robbery is kept distinct from theft, even though it is essentially theft + force.  But in the courts, the definition of "force" has been so construed to venture into territory that resembles larceny by trick.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 14, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> BTW, that you're giving the infringed-upon IP away doesn't shield you in IP cases...that you make a profit is not an element of the crime.




Ah, (I'm thinking), I was confusing civil penalties with criminal ones.  But, doesn't _that _ get muddled because copyright infringement takes into account loss of income, potential or actual?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 14, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Ah, (I'm thinking), I was confusing civil penalties with criminal ones.  But, doesn't _that _ get muddled because copyright infringement takes into account loss of income, potential or actual?
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




Actually, IP law includes both civil and criminal penalties.  And while they do look at those elements, they're factors about how you will be punished, not whether you're guilty or not.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 15, 2014)

Janx said:


> As with most things in life, there are plenty of things that are true and correct but still disagreeable with.
> 
> bill's absolutely right that you should be free to say stuff in your own house.
> 
> On the other hand, how were we to learn that Donald Sterling was a racist, if the girl didn't have a recording.  Was she going to go to the press with a "i was talking to Donald and he said..." with no proof?




As Dannyalcatraz says, by paying attention.  But this is America, having racist thoughts and words should not preclude one from owning a business.  Maybe he should have been fired long ago for his ACTIONS, but not for words.  Never for words.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> But this is America, having racist thoughts and words should not preclude one from owning a business.




His racist thoughts and words are not precluding him from having a business, just THIS business.  Again, this is a small group of privileged people that you have to be approved of to join.  And because of his words, they're are revoking his membership.

And it isn't as if this is unique: would you care to guess what happens when you're discovered to be espousing racist dogma while you're bidding on a government contract?

Actions have consequences...and so do words.



> Maybe he should have been fired long ago for his ACTIONS, but not for words.  Never for words.




Oh most certainly, words worth firing people for.

Libel, slander, incitement to riot, creating a hostile workplace- these and others can be done with just words, and all can get you fired.  Justifiably so.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> But this is America, having racist thoughts and words should not preclude one from owning a business.




He isn't, in general.  He wants to buy a pizzeria, he can go right ahead.

His ownership of the Clippers is not simply "owning a business" in the classic, traditional sense.  He doesn't own free and clear with no strings attached.  He owns with a great may stipulations he agreed to at the time of purchase.  He has partners.  He has the right to own a business.  But his partners also have a right to choose who they do business with.  

While discriminating against a person due to race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation is problematic, it is still perfectly legal to choose to not work with big ol' Class-A jerks.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 15, 2014)

If everyone lost their job or business for being a jerk - and I'm not disputing the fact that he's a jerk, he said some horrible things - there'd be a lot less people employed.   And if everyone lost their job because someone didn't like something they said, none of us would have a job.



> Libel, slander, incitement to riot, creating a hostile workplace- these and others can be done with just words, and all can get you fired. Justifiably so.




None of which he did.  And at any rate, all of those cause harm.  Merely stating an opinion, know matter how horrible that opinion sounds to ANYONE, doesn't directly causes harm.  And we're also not talking about someone getting fired.  We're talking about taking someone's business away.  For words baited out of his mouth in his own home.

It's a slippery slope is all I'm saying.  When you start taking people's stuff because you don't like what they say, that's the road to fascism, if done by the government, and mob rule when done by the public.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> > Libel, slander, incitement to riot, creating a hostile workplace- these and others can be done with just words, and all can get you fired. Justifiably so.
> 
> 
> 
> None of which he did.  And at any rate, all of those cause harm.  Merely stating an opinion, know matter how horrible that opinion sounds to ANYONE, doesn't directly causes harm.  And we're also not talking about someone getting fired.  We're talking about taking someone's business away.  For words baited out of his mouth in his own home.



Au contraire- "creating a hostile workplace " is arguably EXACTLY what he did when his racist comments became generally known.  Especially when you consider the ethnic breakdown of the workforce that puts butts in seats at Clippers games.

And, in case you missed it, before these comments became known, he is alleged to have created a hostile workplace in the Clippers organization for quite some time:

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....ohnson-tells-a-vintage-donald-sterling-story/

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2...r-eldridge-recasner-on-why-nba-wont-miss-him/

In addition, his words caused real harm to the image of the Clippers AND the league- several hundred thousand to a couple million dollars worth in sponsorship revenue in just a couple of days- and that drain would have gone from a trickle to a deluge.  The entire NBA was at risk.  Not just of losing money, but of losing out on agreements with all kinds of governmental agencies.

Again, the fact that he is losing the Clippers is his own damn fault.  HE signed the contract that made his ownership of the Clippers possible, with aaaaaaaalllll the clauses designed to protect the NBA and the owners from the actions of, well...the owners themselves.

And shooting off one's mouth like he did would probably be enough to get him ashcanned- even without media exposure- if the other owners in the NBA felt like they didn't want him around anymore.  Remember, this is a private organization.  Regardless of your wealth, you can't just own a team in the NBA, you can't just start your own team and expect to have games scheduled against the Spurs and 76ers.  You don't have a right to an NBA franchise.  You get investigated.  You get voted on.  You get accepted or denied.

And if you piss off the other owners, you get booted out of the club.


----------



## Janx (May 15, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> His racist thoughts and words are not precluding him from having a business, just THIS business.  Again, this is a small group of privileged people that you have to be approved of to join.  And because of his words, they're are revoking his membership.
> 
> And it isn't as if this is unique: would you care to guess what happens when you're discovered to be espousing racist dogma while you're bidding on a government contract?
> 
> ...




If the only way to prove he's a bad guy is to record his words, is that justifiable?

I didn't take his business away from him.  But by knowing he's a bad guy, I am now able to choose to not do business with him based on his status as a bad guy.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 15, 2014)

Danny, he didn't create a hostile work environment, the woman who baited and recorded him did when she sold the recordings.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> If everyone lost their job or business for being a jerk - and I'm not disputing the fact that he's a jerk, he said some horrible things - there'd be a lot less people employed.




If you work at Foo-Mart, and you make a disparaging, racist comment such that a customer hears it, and that gets back to the manager, you might well face disciplinary action or be fired with cause.  You might not, but nobody's going to be surprised if it happens, either.



> And if everyone lost their job because someone didn't like something they said, none of us would have a job.




This is a little beyond, "someone didn't like."  The guy said that he didn't want a woman close to him even being seen with an African American.  Note how many of the players and ticket buyers are African Americans?  He said something that the majority of his employees and _tens of thousands of paying customers_ would naturally take as a personal insult.  

He owns the team.  That means he must keep to a certain level of decorum in his public persona.  If he isn't up to it - for example, by being too stupid or arrogant to keep his private life private so he gets caught - then he shouldn't be in that role. Because, really, telling a bi-racial woman that she shouldn't be seen in public with African American men is dumb, and arrogant.  He didn't see the possibility that she might just take offense, and think of a way to get back at him for it?  That speaks to a lack of savvy that means he's really no longer suitable for ownership.

And no, there is no slippery slope here.  This is a very highly-placed individual, being held to the standards required of that position.  What happens to him does not logically extend to it happening to the rest of us.


----------



## billd91 (May 15, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> For the record, the Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned team (the only one in the NFL).




No kidding. Being from Wisconsin, I'd never have known that. 

But even so, it's not like the Brown County sales tax hike to pay for work on Lambeau Field has been uncontroversial. A lot of people will be glad when it expires next year. But the point is the Green Bay Packers are well-regarded by the fans and locals (well, worshiped, really) and can get away with a lot on the issue of public funding. I imagine the same will be true with other storied, long-term resident teams like the Chicago Bears despite not being owned by shareholders. Can you imagine Cubs fans not being willing to pony up to make improvements to Wrigley Field? And then you get other cases like the Marlins where it looks a lot more like fleecing the public.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 15, 2014)

I'm thinking we need to be careful to add a finder distinction than is provided by using only the word "owner".

I can own a corner store, and manage it directly, or be personally involved in hiring the store manager and crew.

Or, I can own stock in a public company, and pay no attention to it other than to glance at my 401K allocations occasionally.  Heck, I might not have any clear idea of what I own, because all of it is through funds that own a broad collection of stocks.

I can get even further removed, and have ownership through a blind trust.

Should a major corporation be boycotted because a fraction of its shareholders hold particular views?  How about if a majority shareholder held those views?

Can I be forced to sell shares of a company, of which I hold a miniscule proportion of shares, because of my views?  Or, say, if I have committed a major crime?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 15, 2014)

Umbran said:


> If you work at Foo-Mart, and you make a disparaging, racist comment such that a customer hears it, and that gets back to the manager, you might well face disciplinary action or be fired with cause.  You might not, but nobody's going to be surprised if it happens, either.




Yes, but what happens when you're the owner?  

If a man loses his business for racist remarks, what happens to the players and coaches?  A gay slur is a 50-100k fine, but a racial slur is 2 million, a lifetime ban, and forfeiture of assets.How many players have used the "N" word?  How many have been in jail for assault, or selling drugs, or torturing and killing animals (Michael Vick)?    Yet they can suit up and continue to make millions.    There's a whole lot of stuff going on in professional sports much worse than being a racist in your own home, yet, actual criminal behavior seems to be ok.  I'd rather a thousand horrible people say horrible things than have to watch every word I say for fear I might offend someone somewhere and lose my business or home, or whatever.

I personally hate the thought of pineapple on pizza and think anyone who likes it is mentally incompetent.  Please don't bring your pineapple loving pizza friends to my D&D games.   Now I'm off to wait on the Pineapple Police to come take my house.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Yes, but what happens when you're the owner?




Ask Chick-Fil-A.



> If a man loses his business for racist remarks, what happens to the players and coaches?




Well, now we get into something a bit more interesting.  How much does the owner make per year?  How much does a typical individual player?  

If/when the team is sold, Sterling is likely to walk away with $500 million to $1 billion.  If a typical player is fired, how much does he walk away with?  Probably nothing, right?  Are those equivalent?  The player loses his entire livelihood, and Sterling walks away with something like a billion dollars?  

I think some of you may be too fixed on the concept of "loss of ownership", and need to remember that the value of a punishment is relative.  To the player, the job is probably everything he's got.  If he loses that in ignominy, he's going to do what, exactly, for the rest of his life?  Sell used cars? Meanwhile, Sterling's going to cry all the way to the bank, as he's getting something like a 30x return on a long-term investment he made in the 1980s.  

Simply put - Sterling is in a completely different position than a player, both in organizational/role terms, and in financial terms, and some of you are engaging in some hefty comparison of apples to oranges.



> I personally hate the thought of pineapple on pizza and think anyone who likes it is mentally incompetent.  Please don't bring your pineapple loving pizza friends to my D&D games.   Now I'm off to wait on the Pineapple Police to come take my house.




Because, as we all know, your game is a major public spectator sport for which ticket sales are in the millions of dollars a session?

And they aren't gong to be taking away Sterling's house - they're planning to take his ownership and _give him back market value_ for the team, in a process that could take years, during which he's still reaping the monetary rewards of ownership.  

It seem to me you're doing an excellent job of showing how Sterling's case really doesn't extend down to folks like you and me.


----------



## Dannager (May 15, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Danny, he didn't create a hostile work environment, the woman who baited and recorded him did when she sold the recordings.




"I didn't create a hostile work environment when I said that all of my employees were trash and deserve to be fired! _You_ created the hostile work environment when you recorded me saying those things and gave it to the employees I called trash!"

Hopefully that puts things in perspective for you. We have a responsibility to watch what we say. Our words have consequences. Doubly so when you are contractually bound in such a way as to jeopardize your stake in an organization by playing a major role in a PR disaster.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 15, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Ask Chick-Fil-A.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Those poor players, having nothing but the 100 million or so in the bank.  Sterling's case is but an example.  He happened to make a good investment.  What if he'd bought the team today, and it devalued over 10 years?  As to folks like you and I, it's not the amount of zeroes involved, it's the principal of the thing.  It doesn't even matter WHAT he said - and again, I'm not disputing the character of the man, I think he's despicable - I object to people losing assets over words said, especially in private.  What's next?  Someone personally doesn't approve of {insert topic here], and suddenly the witch hunt is on once again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Danny, he didn't create a hostile work environment, the woman who baited and recorded him did when she sold the recordings.




Yes he did create a hostile work environment, and long before these comments came to light- the stories I lined to above are just a coupe of many.  That his racism has been exposed completely just illuminates the WHY behind the environment he created...and further poisons its atmosphere.  Now the players know the reason he (seemingly) fought his black players' contractual demands with more vigor than white ones.

Also, as of this point in time, Viviano denies being responsible for the leak...rather more vigorously than Sterling has denied that he ordered the tapes made...  In fact, the most recent claim is that someone else (supposedly one of Viviano's friends) took the recording and released it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 15, 2014)

Dannager said:


> "I didn't create a hostile work environment when I said that all of my employees were trash and deserve to be fired! _You_ created the hostile work environment when you recorded me saying those things and gave it to the employees I called trash!"
> 
> Hopefully that puts things in perspective for you. We have a responsibility to watch what we say. Our words have consequences. Doubly so when you are contractually bound in such a way as to jeopardize your stake in an organization by playing a major role in a PR disaster.




Umm ... I'm sure you've said some nasty things about coworkers, bosses or employees over the years - we all have.  That didn't create a hostile work environment, did it?  In other words, your action did nothing by itself.  Hopefully that puts things in perspective for you.  The man said something he thought was in private and _someone else _decided to make it public - not him.  He didn't do it, he never wanted to do it, if it were up to him none of his employees ever would have heard it.

He's a nasty bigot, that's certain.  The issue is that he was a nasty bigot _in private _and someone else decided to out him.  That's not on him - he didn't make anything he said a policy, he never booted any of her friends from the games (even though he could have since they were using his seats), he did _nothing_.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes he did create a hostile work environment, and long before these comments came to light- the stories I lined to above are just a coupe of many.  That his racism has been exposed completely just illuminates the WHY behind the environment he created...and further poisons its atmosphere.  Now the players know the reason he (seemingly) fought his black players' contractual demands with more vigor than white ones.




Irrelevant.  He's not being punished for things that happened a long time ago, he's being punished for this.  



> Also, as of this point in time, Viviano denies being responsible for the leak...rather more vigorously than Sterling has denied that he ordered the tapes made...  In fact, the most recent claim is that someone else (supposedly one of Viviano's friends) took the recording and released it.




What do you expect her to say?  'Yeah, bro.  I recorded that old racist SoB and tried to blackmail him.  He said f-you and threatened to take all the stuff he gave me back so I did what any girl in my position and used to a certain lifestyle would do: I sold that bleep to TMZ to get paid, son.  That's how we do.'?

And let's say the friend released it.  You don't think it's possible she ordered him/her to do it so she could get paid, son?  I mean, the absolute faith in an obvious gold digger is astounding to me.  Yeah, I get the 'don't believe the racist piece of garbage' stuff but how it translates into 'trust the highly paid, 30 year old biracial* consort of an 80 year old billionaire' simply dumbfounds me.

EDIT: *Wanted to explain why I included 'biracial' here: It's cuz you can't trust those people.  By 'those people', of course, I mean the kind of folks who date a man more than twice their age who has revealed himself to be intolerant of people like them.  Gee, I wonder if it had anything to do with the Ferrari ... or maybe the $1.8 million house he bought her.  Nah, she's totes trustworthy, right?  Or maybe, _just maybe__, _all she cares about is gettin' paid, son.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

> He owns the team.




...subject to the limitations, conditions and rules of ownership as detailed in the contract with the NBA.

IOW, this isn't like starting up a toy store or opening a restaurant.  His ownership is conditional, and he violated at least one of the conditions.

Now, the contract may not specifically say that the other owners/NBA Commish can force him to sell the Clippers, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were allowed to say...shrink the NBA by one team and then award a new franchise to another person or organization.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Yes, but what happens when you're the owner?
> 
> If a man loses his business for racist remarks, what happens to the players and coaches?  A gay slur is a 50-100k fine, but a racial slur is 2 million, a lifetime ban, and forfeiture of assets.How many players have used the "N" word?  How many have been in jail for assault, or selling drugs, or torturing and killing animals (Michael Vick)?    Yet they can suit up and continue to make millions.    There's a whole lot of stuff going on in professional sports much worse than being a racist in your own home, yet, actual criminal behavior seems to be ok.  I'd rather a thousand horrible people say horrible things than have to watch every word I say for fear I might offend someone somewhere and lose my business or home, or whatever.





Simply put, the talent and the ownership are held to different standards because they're operating under _*a completely different set of legal obligations.*_ The players are employees of the league.  They're bound by how the contracts will be interpreted under Employment Law statutes and case law in respect to the league in general and their team in particular.  Meanwhile, while the owners are similarly bound by Emplyment Law, they have the additional strictures of the contract they signed to be allowed to own a team in the NBA, which includes rights and responsibilities that the players do not have.*

And make no mistake, if a player said enough or did enough things the league found distasteful, they could, in fact, ban him from the league for life. That they rarely do so is probably all about $$$.  They know it is the players that generate the income.

The bottom line: while you have a right to work and open a business, you don't have a right to any particular kind of work or business.  NBA team ownership is very lucrative, but it has a whole bunch of conditions attached to it, one of which is not making the league itself look bad.










* such as the very important exemption from US Anti-Trust Laws.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Umm ... I'm sure you've said some nasty things about coworkers, bosses or employees over the years - we all have.  That didn't create a hostile work environment, did it?  In other words, your action did nothing by itself.




Legally speaking, mere words ARE sufficient to create a hostile work environment.  But whether or not the words do so is a matter for the trier of fact to determine.



> He's a nasty bigot, that's certain.  The issue is that he was a nasty bigot _in private _and someone else decided to out him.  That's not on him - he didn't make anything he said a policy, he never booted any of her friends from the games (even though he could have since they were using his seats), he did _nothing_.




It most certainly IS on him: he has a legally binding contractual obligation to the other owners and the NBA to  avoid tarnishing the image of the league.  Clauses like that are usually a matter of strict liability: they're 100% enforceable regardless of the how and why one manages to damage the brand.




> Irrelevant.  He's not being punished for things that happened a long time ago, he's being punished for this.




What is past is prologue.  The events of the recent past are not the reason for the punishment, no, but they are symptomatic of his attitude. And the words for which he is being punished added poison to the water cooler.

He DID create a hostile workplace- now we know why.



> What do you expect her to say?  'Yeah, bro.  I recorded that old racist SoB and tried to blackmail him.  He said f-you and threatened to take all the stuff he gave me back so I did what any girl in my position and used to a certain lifestyle would do: I sold that bleep to TMZ to get paid, son.  That's how we do.'?




What SHE has said is:

1) Sterling recorded conversations in that place as a matter of routine, at his order.  Sterling has not refuted this.

2) she did not release the tape, and wishes that it had never happened.  (Probably- and I'm just speculating, here- because by doing so, it derails her gravy train.)

The theory that someone else released the tape was not floated by her.



> And let's say the friend released it.  You don't think it's possible she ordered him/her to do it so she could get paid, son?  I mean, the absolute faith in an obvious gold digger is astounding to me.  Yeah, I get the 'don't believe the racist piece of garbage' stuff but how it translates into 'trust the highly paid, 30 year old biracial* consort of an 80 year old billionaire' simply dumbfounds me.



Odds are good that having a billionaire sugar daddy is a lot more lucrative than a payout from a scandal rag.  Especially since said payout wouldn't come with court side tickets to Clippers games, invites to exclusive events, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> I object to people losing assets over words said, especially in private.  What's next?  Someone personally doesn't approve of {insert topic here], and suddenly the witch hunt is on once again.




Except- and this is key- _*he freely signed the contract that allowed this to happen.*_

Heaven forbid that a seasoned businessman and successful lawyer be held to the terms of a contract that he signed!


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Those poor players, having nothing but the 100 million or so in the bank.




For a couple of them.  However, a quick search discovers that the average salary is something like $3.4 million, and the median is down at $1.5 million - so the average is skewed by a relatively small number of highly paid players.  Half of them are making $1.5 million or less a year.  

The average career of an NBA player seems to be about six years, the average (not median) career earnings is $24 million.  I'm going to guess the career median earnings are more like $9 million.  So, I think you're off by a factor of 10 or so.

Now, compared to the career earnings of most folks on the street, that's a lot.  But Sterling's worth something like $2 Billion.  



> As to folks like you and I, it's not the amount of zeroes involved, it's the principal of the thing.




We can approach this in two different ways:  

1) See that, in his position, somewhat different principles may apply.  He can be held to a higher standard than is generally applied to most folks.

2) We be very clear about what might happen to him.  Him being forced to sell the Clippers isn't like you or I losing a home, or having a Mom-and-Pop business taken away without recompense.  As such, the principles involved in his situation, and what happens to Mom-and-Pop, are rather different, as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 16, 2014)

Umbran said:


> For a couple of them.  However, a quick search discovers that the average salary is something like $3.4 million, and the median is down at $1.5 million - so the average is skewed by a relatively small number of highly paid players.  Half of them are making $1.5 million or less a year.
> 
> The average career of an NBA player seems to be about six years, the average (not median) career earnings is $24 million.  I'm going to guess the career median earnings are more like $9 million.  So, I think you're off by a factor of 10 or so.



This article has an interesting bit of trivia on that:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1195981/index.htm



> TRIVIA QUESTION: Entering this season, how many players in NBA history had won an NCAA title, an NBA title and earned more than $90 million as a pro?
> 
> Answer: Two. One is Michael Jordan. The other is Antoine Walker.




And this guy wound up playing for the equivalent of a burger-flipper's salary in 2012.



As for this:


> As to folks like you and I, it's not the amount of zeroes involved, it's the principal of the thing.




The principle involved isn't what you think it is.  It's not a question of free speech, its a question of whether a private group can control its membership and police its members by enforcing its own rules.

Because this is, at its core, a guy being kicked out of a private club.  The club happens to run a multibillion dollar a year business, yes, but that doesn't mean he has a perpetual right to continued membership in the club.  Membership in that club is highly conditional- violate the terms & conditions, get voted out by the other members.

Think of it like being in a country club or the American military.  Both restrict free speech.  Badmouth the business of another country club member, or cause the club itself to be viewed in a negative light and you could face sanctions like membership suspension or expulsion...even if it was in a private conversation that became public.

Article 88 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use "contemptuous words" against the President, Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, and other specified high government officials. Enlisted members can be prosecuted under Article 134 for using similar words. The words have to be "to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Military members have gotten into trouble for calling officials "fascists," "thieves," murderers" "tyrants" "fools" and "gangsters."


----------



## JRRNeiklot (May 16, 2014)

Nevermind.  Getting too political for ENworld.


----------



## Dannager (May 18, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Umm ... I'm sure you've said some nasty things about coworkers, bosses or employees over the years - we all have.  That didn't create a hostile work environment, did it?




It certainly lays the groundwork for one!



> In other words, your action did nothing by itself.




And, similarly, Sterling's girlfriend recording an innocuous conversation *would have done nothing* by itself. But the conversation *wasn't* innocuous. It was vile. It was blatantly racist. And it made him, his team, and the league vulnerable to a PR disaster.

And, fortunately, there are consequences for all of those things.



> Hopefully that puts things in perspective for you.  The man said something he thought was in private and _someone else _decided to make it public - not him.  He didn't do it, he never wanted to do it, if it were up to him none of his employees ever would have heard it.




Of course he didn't want to be publicly exposed as a racist, fined a huge amount of money, and have the ownership of his team put in jeopardy! But he was careless in addition to being repugnant, and so here we are.



> He's a nasty bigot, that's certain.  The issue is that he was a nasty bigot _in private _and someone else decided to out him.  That's not on him




No one cares. No one _should_ care. He's a racist. It doesn't matter if he's a public racist or a "private" racist (read: racist only when he thinks he can get away with it). He knew he was a racist, he knew there was always a chance that someone he shared his racism with could expose him, and it's finally happened.

It *is* on him. He is not freed of any responsibility simply because he was only racist in front of *one* person of color instead of a thousand!



> - he didn't make anything he said a policy,




It's clear that he has operated on a lifelong policy of racism - embroiled in discrimination suits, known for bringing his girlfriends into the team's locker room to show off his players' "beautiful black bodies", etc.

Not that any of that matters. Even if he _hadn't_ let his racism affect how he treated those around him (he did), it doesn't change what he said.



> he did _nothing_.




He said plenty. Speech is a form of action, and you can (and _should_) be held liable for it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 19, 2014)

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that he acted on anything he said.  

2) There is no evidence whatsoever that his beliefs had any impact on his NBA business practices.

3) What he said he said in private.  It was a private conversation meant for a specific, singular audience.

4) That private conversation was leaked and that is the only reason anyone knows about it.  Had it not been released _nothing would have changed_.

I mean, if you can't see how number 4 makes all the difference in the world, I don't know what to say.  He didn't _do_ anything.  Not a damn thing.  He _said_ some terrible things but he did so in a _private _- lemme explain this one: as in _not even remotely business related_ - conversation.

Meh, if people are fine with other people punishing someone for something they _think_, I can't really talk to them.  I sure as hell won't offer a hand to help when their time comes, either.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> 1) There is no evidence whatsoever that he acted on anything he said.




That doesn't make racism okay.



> 2) There is no evidence whatsoever that his beliefs had any impact on his NBA business practices.




Yes, there is. And even if there weren't, it doesn't make racism okay.



> 3) What he said he said in private.  It was a private conversation meant for a specific, singular audience.




That doesn't make racism okay.



> 4) That private conversation was leaked and that is the only reason anyone knows about it.  Had it not been released _nothing would have changed_.




Had he not opened his mouth in the first place or been a tremendous racist _nothing would have changed._



> I mean, if you can't see how number 4 makes all the difference in the world, I don't know what to say.




Then perhaps you should consider not saying anything? Sterling certainly would have benefited from that advice.



> He didn't _do_ anything.




Speech is a form of action.



> He _said_ some terrible things but he did so in a _private _- lemme explain this one: as in _not even remotely business related_ - conversation.




No one cares. It doesn't matter whether what he said reached the ears of _one_ offended party, or one _thousand_ offended parties. His character is not improved by being a coward in addition to a racist.

As for it not being "remotely business related," we're talking about a man who willingly signed into a contract that stipulates, among other things, that he can be punished when his personal decisions and actions cause harm to the association. Once he put his signature on that contract, *his every action* became business-related.



> Meh, if people are fine with other people punishing someone for something they _think_, I can't really talk to them.




He's not being punished for thought. He's being punished for opening his mouth, exercising his vocal cords, and producing racist speech.

You _want_ to make this about punishing thought because that gives your argument a leg to stand on - a leg it otherwise lacks.



> I sure as hell won't offer a hand to help when their time comes, either.




If my "time comes" in the same manner that Sterling's time came, I will have deserved every ounce of it. The man isn't being framed. He isn't having words put in his mouth. He's not being _misrepresented_. The best thing that you can possibly say about what he did is that _it is not literally illegal__ for him to have said it_. (Don't forget to read the hover-text!)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

> 2) There is no evidence whatsoever that his beliefs had any impact on his NBA business practices.




That is simply incorrect:

1) he has a history of bad relations with the minority players on his team- including actions like delaying issuing their salary checks- which had detrimental effects on the morale and play of the Clippers.  It was not until the conversation was leaked that anyone fully understood _why_ he antagonized his players.

2) once the conversation was leaked that negative impact spread league-wide.



> 3) What he said he said in private. It was a private conversation meant for a specific, singular audience.



So what?

There are no guarantees of privacy.  Whenever you speak to another, whatever you write down, any thought you allow to exit your mind and enter the universe beyond its confines may eventually reach an unintended audience.

In many cases, there are consequences for those who redirect that information.  And in some cases, there are consequences for those who originated the thought.



> 4) That private conversation was leaked and that is the only reason anyone knows about it. Had it not been released nothing would have changed.



Good thing it got leaked- the corporate culture of the Clippers should improve in his absence.



> I mean, if you can't see how number 4 makes all the difference in the world, I don't know what to say. He didn't do anything. Not a damn thing. He said some terrible things but he did so in a private - lemme explain this one: as in not even remotely business related - conversation.



It doesn't change a thing.

Private clubs like the NBA largely don't care about what a member does in private...until it becomes public.  And then, they don't care HOW it became public, they only care if it damages the club.  Pretty much, private clubs can police their own, as long as they don't do anything illegal in doing so.

Sterling said something in private that got leaked, and it cast a pall over the Clippers & the NBA.  His publicized comments cost the Clippers hundreds of thousands if not millions, and threatened to cost the NBA hundreds of millions.

The NBA didn't cause the leak, but that doesn't mean they're not well within their rights to act on it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> That doesn't make racism okay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was gonna let this go but your fundamental lack of understanding of my position - despite my many, many clarifications of said - has compelled me to respond.  I never said racism was ok.  Not once.  If that's what you're getting out of this, well, I have to say it says a lot.  I won't bother wasting any more of my time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So what?
> 
> There are no guarantees of privacy.  Whenever you speak to another, whatever you write down, any thought you allow to exit your mind and enter the universe beyond its confines may eventually reach an unintended audience.
> 
> t.




First, i dont really care what happens to this guy. He sounds like a terrible person who is extremley out of touch and I have trouble summoning much sympathy for his plight at all.

that said privacy is protected to a degree in the US. And it is illegal in most states to record people without their knowledge. If he was unaware that he was being recorded than a crime was committed. As bad as he is, as much as he probbaly deserves not to own the clippers, we shouldn't ignore the questionable manner in which the information was obtained. 

I worry that "the ends justify the means" is becoming increasingly acceptible when these sorts of controversies arise.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I worry that "the ends justify the means" is becoming increasingly acceptible when these sorts of controversies arise.




We're heading somewhere I don't think we ever were intended to - and somewhere I definitely don't define as free (er, as free as we can get).  Just look at the number of apologies people in the media or entertainment or sports are forced to make.  Most of 'em are actual accidents or just jokes and yet if they fail to say they're sorry they'll likely lose their jobs.  Hell, they're likely to lose 'em anyway.  There's a line between humor and serious discussion that's been completely removed from contemporary conversation due to the modern trend toward hypersensitivity and that awesome looking for offense stuff.  Obviously that's not the case with Sterling - he wasn't making a joke - but this whole 'fry the man for what he said' crap isn't what I think any country should behave like.  It disgusts me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> that said privacy is protected to a degree in the US. And it is illegal in most states to record people without their knowledge. If he was unaware that he was being recorded than a crime was committed. As bad as he is, as much as he probbaly deserves not to own the clippers, we shouldn't ignore the questionable manner in which the information was obtained.
> 
> I worry that "the ends justify the means" is becoming increasingly acceptible when these sorts of controversies arise.




1) the statutes regarding the legality of recording persons unawares vary from state to state, and there is also Federal law in the mix.  In some cases, all that is needed to make recording a conversation legal is the consent of a single party.  We simply don't have enough data as yet to know if there was even a criminal act in the recording of this conversation.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

2) that said, the allegation has been made- and _still_ not refuted- that Sterling was or should have been aware he was being recorded because it was a policy HE enacted.  The recording was made in the ordinary course of his activities, probably by someone whose job it was to do so.  If true, there is no legal grounds for him to challenge the legality of the existence of the recording in any jurisdiction.

3) while we do have privacy protection laws, they're narrowly drafted.  *And they don't apply here.*

Sterling may or may not have a civil or criminal case against the leaker, but there is no evidence the NBA by its actions violated any privacy statute.  That there may have been a violation of the privacy laws in releasing that information is immaterial to the NBA's acting upon that information.  The law doesn't care because the NBA didn't cause the violation.  They didn't record Sterling; they didn't have an employee steal/leak the recording.  They merely acted on information made public. 

Imagine a Roman Catholic priest who has an affair with a woman in his parish.  They tell no one; they are discreet.  Then, by accident, they are photographed kissing.  The couple's privacy was violated.  There is no evidence that his actions had a negative effect on anyone- he committed no tort or crime- but the priest is told that he will be defrocked...possibly excommunicated.  Private information made public cost him his vocation because he violated the rules of the organization of which he was a member- catholic clergy.

That was essentially Father Alberto Cutié's situation.  He left the Roman Catholic Church and became an Episcopal minister.  He even married the woman with whom he had been intimate.  You know what he didn't do?

He didn't sue the church, because he had no legal grounds to do so.



> Obviously that's not the case with Sterling - he wasn't making a joke - but this whole 'fry the man for what he said' crap isn't what I think any country should behave like. It disgusts me.




Again, he's being kicked out of a private organization for costing them money and damaging their brand image/identity.  And the basis for the NBA's ability to do this is _a membership contract he voluntarily signed._

Are you saying that an experienced businessman and lawyer should not be held accountable to abide by the terms and conditions of contracts he signs?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

I am not saying privacy laws would prevent or should prevent the NBA from punishing him. I am just pointing out that she recorded him and it could be a crime and violation of his privacy. All we have is her statement that he agreed to be recorded. I used to record interviews for my freelance work and in states where such laws existed you usually needed to get written or verbal consent (which you would obviously need to record so you had a record...otherwise it is your word against the persons). I am not at all defending him or what he said. I just feel people are losing sight of the importance of privacy and our rights to expect it. Privacy rights are real. That is why hospitals can't give out your medical information and why debt collectors have to tell you "this call is being recorded".


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Imagine a Roman Catholic priest who has an affair with a woman in his parish.  They tell no one; they are discreet.  Then, by accident, they are photographed kissing.  The couple's privacy was violated.  There is no evidence that his actions had a negative effect on anyone- he committed no tort or crime- but the priest is told that he will be defrocked...possibly excommunicated.  Private information made public cost him his vocation because he violated the rules of the organization of which he was a member- catholic clergy.




I am not saying the church couldn't act in this case. I am saying we shouldn't encourage the photographer who violated peoples privacy. If they were in the privacy of their own home or in a place where they had no reasonable expectation that they were being photographed, and this person did so, then the photographer should be held accountable and that should be a part of the story that is discussed. Same in this case. The NBA can do whatever it wants in light of this information. But I think we should all be a little less at ease knowing these kinds of recordings are becoming more and more the norm. I personally do not want to live in a world where it is considered acceptable for a friend or acquaintance to secretly record me in my living room and then air that to the public or take it to my work. People say things in their house they might not say outside it, they are less guarded with their language. I am just generally uncomfortable with the level of crusading I see these days. I think it is okay to say that and still acknowledge what Sterling said was reprehensible.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I never said racism was ok.  Not once.




No, you didn't. But you insist on acting like a grievous injustice was committed against Sterling because a conversation whose details he probably wanted to keep between him and his girlfriend was instead heard by far more.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> We're heading somewhere I don't think we ever were intended to - and somewhere I definitely don't define as free (er, as free as we can get).  Just look at the number of apologies people in the media or entertainment or sports are forced to make.  Most of 'em are actual accidents or just jokes and yet if they fail to say they're sorry they'll likely lose their jobs.  Hell, they're likely to lose 'em anyway.  There's a line between humor and serious discussion that's been completely removed from contemporary conversation due to the modern trend toward hypersensitivity and that awesome looking for offense stuff.  Obviously that's not the case with Sterling - he wasn't making a joke - but this whole 'fry the man for what he said' crap isn't what I think any country should behave like.  It disgusts me.




Except that there's no hypersensitivity or looking-for-offense going on here. I hate that stuff, too, but the guy said some truly, horrifically racist things. We're not talking about stuff that could _maybe be construed as racism if you tilt your head._ He knew what he was saying, he knew the potential consequences if his racism ever came to light, he knew who he was saying it to, and he said those things anyway.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I just feel people are losing sight of the importance of privacy and our rights to expect it. Privacy rights are real. That is why hospitals can't give out your medical information and why debt collectors have to tell you "this call is being recorded".




Who is "losing sight of the importance of privacy?" Literally every conversation I've seen on this topic has had the privacy issue raised. It has been ubiquitous. _We couldn't lose sight of it if we wanted to_. So what are you trying to accomplish, here? What message are you trying to get to us that we're not understanding? That there are potentially privacy issues involved? Yeah, no, we get that. That you're _concerned_ about those privacy issues? Yeah, we get that, too. But you're doing nothing but speculating, here - you don't even have proof that a breach of privacy occurred.

So who, exactly, is losing sight of the importance of privacy?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> No, you didn't. But you insist on acting like a grievous injustice was committed against Sterling because a conversation whose details he probably wanted to keep between him and his girlfriend was instead heard by far more.




It can still be both though. What he said could be racists and reprehensible, but it could also be an injustice for his girlfriend to record and play it for the world if she didn't have permission to do so. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Now if she got his permission that is a totally different story. Something about her claims that she did doesn't ring true though. And whether or not the NBA acts against him is a separate matter, because that information is now out there.


----------



## Janx (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am just pointing out that she recorded him and it could be a crime and violation of his privacy.




This is the same as other people have stated.  And Danny has explained that the argument has been negated because Sterling has not refuted the woman's claim that he approved it.

Had your argument any legs, it would be proven by Sterling filing charges/suing, which has not happened.  The proof is in the eating of the pudding, and Sterling ain't biting.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> Who is "losing sight of the importance of privacy?" Literally every conversation I've seen on this topic has had the privacy issue raised. It has been ubiquitous. _We couldn't lose sight of it if we wanted to_. So what are you trying to accomplish, here? What message are you trying to get to us that we're not understanding? That there are potentially privacy issues involved? Yeah, no, we get that. That you're _concerned_ about those privacy issues? Yeah, we get that, too. But you're doing nothing but speculating, here - you don't even have proof that a breach of privacy occurred.
> 
> So who, exactly, is losing sight of the importance of privacy?




I think a lot of people are, notably you. I haven't been following the story very closely, but when I have encountered it in the news I have seen little mention of the privacy issue and I do see a lot of people dismissing it as a concern. I am basically agreeing with you that he can be penalized by the NBA and that what he said was awful. But I do think if she recorded him without permission (which it frankly looks like she did, since she hasn't furnished proof of consent) then she should be held accountable as well.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> It can still be both though. What he said could be racists and reprehensible, but it could also be an injustice for his girlfriend to record and play it for the world if she didn't have permission to do so.




It could be! If she didn't have permission, and if the law isn't on her side! Or it could not be! We don't know! But we should be _concerned_, right?

How about we let the courts handle that one, hm?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Janx said:


> This is the same as other people have stated.  And Danny has explained that the argument has been negated because Sterling has not refuted the woman's claim that he approved it.
> 
> Had your argument any legs, it would be proven by Sterling filing charges/suing, which has not happened.  The proof is in the eating of the pudding, and Sterling ain't biting.




I am not convinced she had permission at this point. I think it is possible she did, but I haven't really seen any journalists follow up on this angle that much. As far as I am concerned how the recordings were obtained remains an open question. If she did have permission, that pretty much ends it, because that is entirely legal. But if she didn't, it is an issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying privacy laws would prevent or should prevent the NBA from punishing him. I am just pointing out that she recorded him and it could be a crime and violation of his privacy. All we have is her statement that he agreed to be recorded.




...which Sterling has had several weeks, now, to deny.  He's denied everything else about the situation until he was proven wrong or lying, but hasn't uttered one syllable or issued one press release regarding the circumstances by which the recording was made.

That should tell you either:

1) proving she is right would be trivially easy for her to do. (Especially once subpoenas start flying.)

OR

2) proving she is wrong would involve the release of more damaging information.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think a lot of people are, notably you.




Again, how would that even be possible? You can't go two posts without someone mentioning how _concerned _they are that someone's words were recorded by a private party potentially without their knowledge.



> I haven't been following the story very closely, but when I have encountered it in the news I have seen little mention of the privacy issue and I do see a lot of people dismissing it as a concern.




Because, _*at the absolute worst*_, it was a private party recording another private party in violation of the law, and if that is the case Sterling has plenty of legal remedies at his disposal. The government didn't infringe on anyone's rights. The NBA isn't trying to put the little guy down. Cats and dogs aren't engaging in rampant co-habitation.



> I am basically agreeing with you that he can be penalized by the NBA and that what he said was awful. But I do think if she recorded him without permission (which it frankly looks like she did, since she hasn't furnished proof of consent) then she should be held accountable as well.




And if she did, she will. Literally everyone acknowledges this. Is there more that you feel you need to say on that subject?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> How about we let the courts handle that one, hm?




I think it is just as fair to talk about that as it is to talk about the NBA and other factors around this event. I mean this is a discussion board. I shouldn't have to wait for things to go to trial to say I am troubled that this may have been an unlawful recording. I happen to value privacy and think that part of this story is important too.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> Because, _*at the absolute worst*_, it was a private party recording another private party in violation of the law, and if that is the case Sterling has plenty of legal remedies at his disposal. The government didn't infringe on anyone's rights. The NBA isn't trying to put the little guy down. Cats and dogs aren't engaging in rampant co-habitation.




I never suggested the government infringed on his rights. That doesn't make it less of an issue. I am concerned that our privacy appears to be less and less protected every year. It isn't a minor issue. I think as a culture we have grown too comfortable with loss of privacy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> And if she did, she will. Literally everyone acknowledges this. Is there more that you feel you need to say on that subject?




No. I said pretty much everything I had to say. But I do not need your permission to continue raising points about it if I want to.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> Again, how would that even be possible? You can't go two posts without someone mentioning how _concerned _they are that someone's words were recorded by a private party potentially without their knowledge.




Sure, but then you see other posters completely dismissing such concerns and (most importantly) you don't see any journalists trying to find out how the recording was obtained and if it was legal.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is just as fair to talk about that as it is to talk about the NBA and other factors around this event.




Really? A civil privacy dispute between two private parties is as interesting, noteworthy, and culturally relevant as the revelation that the owner of a major sports franchise is super racist and may lose ownership of the team?



> I mean this is a discussion board. I shouldn't have to wait for things to go to trial to say I am troubled that this may have been an unlawful recording. I happen to value privacy and think that part of this story is important too.




We all value privacy. Everyone does. I'm still not seeing what purpose discussing this one serves. The courts will hammer it out, and the outcome will impact no one other than the two involved parties and will not affect any precedent in any way. You're free to talk about it, but we're not really sure why you would.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

[PF][/PF]







Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying the church couldn't act in this case. I am saying we shouldn't encourage the photographer who violated peoples privacy. If they were in the privacy of their own home or in a place where they had no reasonable expectation that they were being photographed, and this person did so, then the photographer should be held accountable and that should be a part of the story that is discussed. Same in this case. The NBA can do whatever it wants in light of this information. But I think we should all be a little less at ease knowing these kinds of recordings are becoming more and more the norm. I personally do not want to live in a world where it is considered acceptable for a friend or acquaintance to secretly record me in my living room and then air that to the public or take it to my work. People say things in their house they might not say outside it, they are less guarded with their language. I am just generally uncomfortable with the level of crusading I see these days. I think it is okay to say that and still acknowledge what Sterling said was reprehensible.




We *don't* encourage the photographer or leaker: there is a legal remedy in place already- the lawsuit for invasion of privacy.  "Public Disclosure of Private and Embarrassing Facts" is actionable under the law.

http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=29

But all it does is make the leaker subject to fines and a judicial order to cease and desist publication of the facts.  It does not in any way protect the person whose "Private and Embarrassing Facts" were publicly disclosed from the actions of others who learn of the information.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...which Sterling has had several weeks, now, to deny.  He's denied everything else about the situation until he was proven wrong or lying, but hasn't uttered one syllable or issued one press release regarding the circumstances by which the recording was made.
> 
> That should tell you either:
> 
> ...




No it doesn't tell us anything at all. His lawyers may have instructed him not to comment on the tapes and how they were obtained. He may just be absent minded and not even think to mention it (he hasn't exactly been a brilliant speaker in the interviews we have seen so far). There are any number of reasons why he might not have talked about the circumstances of the recording. 

That said, I do think it is entirely possible she had permission to record for some reason. Absolutely. But we don't know and it doesn't seem like anyone has looked into that. Again, that doesn't take away from the awfulness of what he said. I just feel like we should also be able to comment on that feature of the case without somehow being viewed as siding with the guy.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sure, but then you see other posters completely dismissing such concerns and (most importantly) you don't see any journalists trying to find out how the recording was obtained and if it was legal.




Do you really think that no journalists have pursued this? Despite the headlines it would get if it turned out to be true?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> We *don't* encourage the photographer or leaker: there is a legal remedy in place already- the lawsuit for invasion of privacy.  "Public Disclosure of Private and Embarrassing Facts" is actionable under the law.
> 
> http://www.splc.org/knowyourrights/legalresearch.asp?id=29
> 
> But all it does is make the leaker subject to fines and a judicial order to cease and desist publication of the facts.  It does not in any way protect the person whose "Private and Embarrassing Facts" were publicly disclosed from the actions of others who learn of the information.




The protection comes in them not being legally allowed to make the recording in the first place. So it is intended to protect you from the release of private embarrassing facts in that respect. But i agree once it is released there is little you can do about third parties revealing the information (though whether third parties should publish illegally obtained information is another question). Again this is somewhat of an extreme case, where the individual involved is a terrible person and easy to hate. But I do worry about these sorts of things becoming normal. Let's say your spouse records you in the act of making love without your permission, then publishes it on the internet. Do you want there to be no recourse for you to stop third parties from releasing that information once it is out there?


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> Do you really think that no journalists have pursued this? Despite the headlines it would get if it turned out to be true?




I have no idea. I haven't seen any article that answers the question one way or the other (if she had permission it should be relatively easy for a journalist to obtain a copy of consent from her since it is in her interest to demonstrate that). It was one of my first questions when I read the story and I couldn't find an answer. Again, I have been following this with one eye, so possible I issued coverage of that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> No it doesn't tell us anything at all. His lawyers may have instructed him not to comment on the tapes and how they were obtained.




His legal staff should be fired if that is the case.  Then he should sue them.  Then they should be taken before the state bar to see if they should be suspended or disbarred.

Because that would be malpractice.  There are probably fewer than two attorneys in the state of California who operate in the PR field who would advise that course of action were my hypotheticals above not true.  Those guys are among the best trained in the nation about how to advise a client in the middle of a scandal.  Only the ones in DC might be better.



> He may just be absent minded and not even think to mention it (he hasn't exactly been a brilliant speaker in the interviews we have seen so far).




While he may be absent minded, his PR staff is not.  There would have been a press release- I'm sorry, yet another press release- at this point, and it would have addressed this issue.



> There are any number of reasons why he might not have talked about the circumstances of the recording.



No, really the are not.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> His legal staff should be fired if that is the case.  Then he should sue them.  Then they should be taken before the state bar to see if they should be suspended or disbarred.
> 
> Because that would be malpractice.  There are probably fewer than two attorneys in the state of California who operate in the PR field who would advise that course of action were my hypotheticals above not true.  Those guys are among the best trained in the nation about how to advise a client in the middle of a scandal.  Only the ones in DC might be better.
> 
> ...




I don't agree with your reasoning but fair enough. He may have very bad lawyers, he may not listen to his lawyers, or it may have nothing to do with what his legal and PR people are saying. My only point was I could conceive of alternatives to the two conlcusions presented. I really don't think there is enough information available at all to conclude one way or the other whether she had permission to record. You guys are basing all your conclusions here on hypotheticals. I would rather wait for journalists to provide more concrete answers. But I do think it is an important question and potential issue here. And again, I am not saying he shouldn't be penalized. What I am saying does not in any way take away from the badness of what he said. It just means there is another dimension to the story that is okay to talk about.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have no idea. I haven't seen any article that answers the question one way or the other (if she had permission it should be relatively easy for a journalist to obtain a copy of consent from her since it is in her interest to demonstrate that). It was one of my first questions when I read the story and I couldn't find an answer. Again, I have been following this with one eye, so possible I issued coverage of that.




Her consent would be meaningless- HE and/or the business would have to consent, or be subpoenaed.

The information that proves or disproves the claim that Sterling ordered a policy of recording his conversations- and whatever boundaries he may have placed on it, who was responsible for doing it, etc.- is likely all in the hands of Sterling, his agents or businesses.


----------



## Dannager (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I have no idea. I haven't seen any article that answers the question one way or the other (if she had permission it should be relatively easy for a journalist to obtain a copy of consent from her since it is in her interest to demonstrate that).




A) Not if consent was verbal, and B) not if she is concerned about a legal battle.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> Really? A civil privacy dispute between two private parties is as interesting, noteworthy, and culturally relevant as the revelation that the owner of a major sports franchise is super racist and may lose ownership of the team?




Yes, it is relevant. I think when a personal statement like that explodes and results in the fallout this has, the question of how the private conversation was obtained is important. As bad as what he said was, it doesn't mean that any means used to acquire it was okay. 





> We all value privacy. Everyone does. I'm still not seeing what purpose discussing this one serves. The courts will hammer it out, and the outcome will impact no one other than the two involved parties and will not affect any precedent in any way.




Based on what I see people saying I am not so sure we all do.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannager said:


> A) Not if consent was verbal, and B) not if she is concerned about a legal battle.




I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is verbal consent needs to be recorded (or at the very least it is highly advised to record consent----that is what I did when I conducted interviews).


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Her consent would be meaningless- HE and/or the business would have to consent, or be subpoenaed.




I was talking about his consent. Since she possessed the recordings, and I am assuming was the one conducting them, I would expect her to have some proof of consent. Now it is possible she didn't. I do not know the specific circumstances. But I would expect journalists to ask and answer some of these questions. All I am looking for are statements in articles like "Mr. Sterling declined to comment on whether consent was given for the recording" or "CNN obtained copy of the consent form proving her statement that he had tasked her with recording his daily conversations". And I am not saying consent wasn't given, it may well have been. Again, I think it is reasonable to want to know about this, and to be concerned that few covering the story have raised the issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> We're heading somewhere I don't think we ever were intended to - and somewhere I definitely don't define as free (er, as free as we can get).  Just look at the number of apologies people in the media or entertainment or sports are forced to make.  Most of 'em are actual accidents or just jokes and yet if they fail to say they're sorry they'll likely lose their jobs.  Hell, they're likely to lose 'em anyway.  There's a line between humor and serious discussion that's been completely removed from contemporary conversation due to the modern trend toward hypersensitivity and that awesome looking for offense stuff.  Obviously that's not the case with Sterling - he wasn't making a joke - but this whole 'fry the man for what he said' crap isn't what I think any country should behave like.  It disgusts me.




Generally I agree that people are overly sensitive and too quick to take offense. But in this instance the guy said some outrageously racist things, and that shouldn't be ignored either. I see this as a situation where there are two potential wrongs: the first is sterlings very clear and obvious racism (and any possibility that he was speaking in anger or misunderstood was pretty much eliminated during that apology of his), the second is the recording itself. If the recording was consensual then it is fair game in my opinion. 

I think it is possible to be disgusted by sterling but also be concerned about the nature of privacy and eavesdropping in the country.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The protection comes in them not being legally allowed to make the recording in the first place.  So it is intended to protect you from the release of private embarrassing facts in that respect.




Yes, that's why the tort exists.



> though whether third parties should publish illegally obtained information is another question




"Should" is kind of covered by the "newsworthiness" defense.



> But I do worry about these sorts of things becoming normal. Let's say your spouse records you in the act of making love without your permission, then publishes it on the internet. Do you want there to be no recourse for you to stop third parties from releasing that information once it is out there?




This IS normal- the newsworthiness defense is many decades old, going back at least to 1980.  _Campbell v. Seabury Press_, 614 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1980)

But only public persons or those in a newsworthy positions get tossed out of court on that defense.  As recently as the 2009 Kansas case, _Peterson v. Moldofsky_, the courts have reaffirmed Joe Schmoes' ability to go after third parties.

So yeah, YOU or I could stop a sex tape from further distribution, but a high-profile person would have a much tougher time of it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, that's why the tort exists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The 'could' is covered by the newsworthiness defense, not the 'should' (at least in my opinion).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I was talking about his consent.




I know what you're saying.

What *I'm* saying is proof of his consent to be recorded is unlikely to be in her possession.  It will be in some file in a cabinet in his offices, a memo on his business' system.  Someplace like that.  It won't be a printout at her home.



> Since she possessed the recordings, and I am assuming was the one conducting them, I would expect her to have some proof of consent.




We have no information on where the recordings were kept- her "possession" may have been as minimal as putting them in a safe in his office.



> All I am looking for are statements in articles like "Mr. Sterling declined to comment on whether consent was given for the recording" or "CNN obtained copy of the consent form proving her statement that he had tasked her with recording his daily conversations".




Well, his silence on the matter is functionally identical to the first statement there, and CNN probably won't be able to get that kind of form* without a subpoena being filed by a party in a lawsuit.  Now, the NBA and Sterling are going to court over his penalty, so you may see such show up, but it will be months, if ever, before that reaches the public eye.






* if such a form even exists.  He could have enacted the policy with a verbal command.  He might have been actively recording himself, then delegated the task with a casual "you do this- it's your job now."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is verbal consent needs to be recorded (or at the very least it is highly advised to record consent----that is what I did when I conducted interviews).




Not if it was an order from boss to employee.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not if it was an order from boss to employee.




Certainly, but that is the sort of thing CNN or any other news outlet should be able to find out. My point is it simply isn't even addressed in these articles.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The 'could' is covered by the newsworthiness defense, not the 'should' (at least in my opinion).




I understand- we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, his silence on the matter is functionally identical to the first statement there, and CNN probably won't be able to get that kind of form* without a subpoena being filed by a party in a lawsuit.  Now, the NBA and Sterling are going to court over his penalty, so you may see such show up, but it will be months, if ever, before that reaches the public eye.




I do not agree that they are functionally the same. The man is clearly out of touch, and by most accounts I have heard he didn't even have PR people present for that Cooper interview, so I can very easily see him not offering any information because it has simply not occurred to him. At the very least, I expect CNN to find out who has the consent and report what they can (i.e. she says Mr. Sterling has it, but mr. sterling has declined to comment). I understand why they are focusing on the sexier details here, I just would like to also see coverage of the recording dimension, and I think it is entirely fair to expect that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I understand- we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.




I want to be clear I am not saying whether it should or should not, just that something being legal does not automatically mean the "should" question is answered. There are tons of things I can legally do, but still should not do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Certainly, but that is the sort of thing CNN or any other news outlet should be able to find out. My point is it simply isn't even addressed in these articles.




They _can't_ find it out unless and until they get information from within Sterling's organization- she won't have that proof.  Even if she (or any other employee) signed a document, it will be held in Sterling's possession.

The only proof one way or another will come via another/additional leak, a subpoena (which may happen), or a voluntary release from Sterling's side (which won't happen).

Until then, CNN et alia have nothing they can say on it besides she has made the as yet unrefuted allegation that the recordings were made at his order.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I want to be clear I am not saying whether it should or should not, just that something being legal does not automatically mean the "should" question is answered. There are tons of things I can legally do, but still should not do.






I understood you perfectly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I do not agree that they are functionally the same. The man is clearly out of touch, and by most accounts I have heard he didn't even have PR people present for that Cooper interview, so I can very easily see him not offering any information because it has simply not occurred to him. At the very least, I expect CNN to find out who has the consent and report what they can (i.e. she says Mr. Sterling has it, but mr. sterling has declined to comment). I understand why they are focusing on the sexier details here, I just would like to also see coverage of the recording dimension, and I think it is entirely fair to expect that.




I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.  Occam's Razor applies here.

It's not just whether or not the PR people were present at his interview with AC on CNN. 

His PR team has had *WEEKS* to get him refute the assertion that the recordings were made at his order, via interview or by verbal or written press release.

To say that Sterling has missed his PR team's assertion that he should deny issuing said order this whole time if he did not, in fact, issue said order raises mental competency issues.  If he were indeed incompetent, then the PR staff would be under pressure to make the denial anyway, because it is their job to do so- doing otherwise is professional malpractice.

To say that the PR staff wouldn't tell him to deny he issued the order if he did not, in fact, issue said order would mean they're incompetent at their jobs to the point they should never work in the PR field again.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm sorry, but that is nonsense.  Occam's Razor applies here.
> 
> It's not just whether or not the PR people were present at his interview with AC on CNN.
> 
> ...




I disagree. I think it is entirely possible there are other reasons this hasn't been addressed.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They _can't_ find it out unless and until they get information from within Sterling's organization- she won't have that proof.  Even if she (or any other employee) signed a document, it will be held in Sterling's possession.
> 
> The only proof one way or another will come via another/additional leak, a subpoena (which may happen), or a voluntary release from Sterling's side (which won't happen).
> 
> Until then, CNN et alia have nothing they can say on it besides she has made the as yet unrefuted allegation that the recordings were made at his order.




I am not saying they have to find proof. Just ask questions and report on the answers they do receive. To me this is basic reporting. It is a normal question for the reader to have and I feel like they just haven't made much effort to answer it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To say that Sterling has missed his PR team's assertion that he should deny issuing said order this whole time if he did not, in fact, issue said order raises mental competency issues.  If he were indeed incompetent, then the PR staff would be under pressure to make the denial anyway, because it is their job to do so- doing otherwise is professional malpractice.




I am just presenting it as one possibility. I don't know what is going on his camp. It could be anything from him ignoring his PR people (and judging from the interview with him, he is more than capable of doing that) to his PR people thinking there is no point because the recording is out there and attacking how she got it won't help him in the court of public opinion. No idea. My only point was it doesn't have to be those two conclusions you provided (and I am not convinced it is either of those).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not saying they have to find proof. Just ask questions and report on the answers they do receive. To me this is basic reporting. It is a normal question for the reader to have and I feel like they just haven't made much effort to answer it.




No story is going to include all of the questions asked and unanswered.  CNN is a broadcast news agency, yes, but they're also a business.  Assuming they did ask the question, that it was unanswered may simply have been deemed not worth their precious airtime.  That they didn't include this issue may strike you as shoddy reporting, but that's a question of points for style.  The issue is still out there like a Sword of Damocles.

None of which absolves Sterling's side from not issuing a refutation.  I guaran-damn-tee if Sterling's people announced a press conference, all the agencies would show up to cover it.  The assertion that Sterling ordered the creation of the recordings hasn't been refuted because Sterling's side can't or won't refute it.  Because refuting it- if the refutation is true & accurate- _only works to Sterling's advantage._. He has no reason not to refute the assertion if he can.

...unless, as I stated earlier, refuting the assertion would cause the release of other damaging information.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No story is going to include all of the questions asked and unanswered.  CNN is a broadcast news agency, yes, but they're also a business.  Assuming they did ask the question, that it was unanswered may simply have been deemed not worth their precious airtime.  That they didn't include this issue may strike you as shoddy reporting, but that's a question of points for style.  The issue is still out there like a Sword of Damocles.




I used to do reporting and this is exactly the sort of question I would be expected to ask and to include mention of in the article. I understand not including it on the air because time is precious, but I am talking about the text article on the webpage. The inverted pyramid news story structure is designed for exactly these kinds of questions being answered. It is a matter of thoroughness and relevance to the story (and this is highly relevant).


----------



## tomBitonti (May 20, 2014)

Some additional questions ...

Without know the exact agreement to which NBA owners are held, if we assume a "don't make us look bad" type of statement, in case of a dispute, who gets to make the decision, and who can prevent the decision from taking effect?

Let's change the issue from racist statements to statements taken out of context, say, by a news campaign which wants to smear an individual.  Let's say that a lot of bad publicity arises from the statements and the news campaign.

Then, if the NBA decided to drop the hammer and force out one of the members, could the member dispute this?  That is, in the sense that the decision could be held until decided by a resolving body, such as a court or an arbitration panel?

A part of the problem that folks seem to have is whether or not the NBA is being fair to use the racist comments which were made.  Free speech doesn't apply, but are there no issues of fairness which can be applied?  Is there 100% strict liability, in that, even if the alternate case which I described holds, where statements are very clearly taken out of context, and used in an aggressive smear campaign, could the member still be forced out?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 20, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Without know the exact agreement to which NBA owners are held, if we assume a "don't make us look bad" type of statement, in case of a dispute, who gets to make the decision, and who can prevent the decision from taking effect?




Short answers:

1) "who decides" is determined by the internal structure & procedures of the organization

2) the court system can prevent the organization's decision if they rule that those internal structures and procedures violated the law.



> Let's change the issue from racist statements to statements taken out of context, say, by a news campaign which wants to smear an individual.  Let's say that a lot of bad publicity arises from the statements and the news campaign.
> 
> Then, if the NBA decided to drop the hammer and force out one of the members, could the member dispute this?  That is, in the sense that the decision could be held until decided by a resolving body, such as a court or an arbitration panel?
> 
> A part of the problem that folks seem to have is whether or not the NBA is being fair to use the racist comments which were made.  Free speech doesn't apply, but are there no issues of fairness which can be applied?  Is there 100% strict liability, in that, even if the alternate case which I described holds, where statements are very clearly taken out of context, and used in an aggressive smear campaign, could the member still be forced out?




Well, Sterling HAS decided to contest the NBA disciplinary actions in court.  Depending on particulars we can't know, this could wind up before an arbitration panel as well as/instead of the courts.

Beyond the issues of actually breaking the law, the really isn't a "fairness" issue that can be raised.  I mean, you can still try to bring actions in equity, but they're rarely successful.

And as for 100% strict liability, again, that's a matter of the organization's rules and the contracts that get signed to be a member of it.  The law will only intrude into an organizations' self-regulatory powers if they actually violate the law.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2014)

The LA Times is now reporting that the NBA has alleged that Sterling deliberately tampered with and destroyed evidence, including asking Stiviano to lie about the recording. This guy doesn't know how to do anything but double down.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2014)

Well, that could damn well seal the deal.

If true, he won't be able to succeed with any kind of equity argument, and no judge will give his attorneys any kind of leeway in their arguments before the bench.

Hell, it may even give the NBA fresh grounds to toss him.  IOW, even if his legal team somehow succeeded in having the courts vacate the NBA's punishment for the leaked rant- assuming it doesn't get the case tossed without a hearing- proof that he destroyed evidence and tampered with witnesses in the case could get him a bigger fine and cost him ownership of the Clippers.

It could also get him disbarred.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 21, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, he's being kicked out of a private organization for costing them money and damaging their brand image/identity.  And the basis for the NBA's ability to do this is _a membership contract he voluntarily signed._
> 
> Are you saying that an experienced businessman and lawyer should not be held accountable to abide by the terms and conditions of contracts he signs?




And why is what he said costing the organization money?  Cuz of the witch hunt mentality of our society.  If people could separate what someone says from what they do this wouldn't happen.  It didn't happen cuz people want blood.  They enjoy the power trip even if it doesn't make sense.  We've all been forgiven for saying something terrible and we'd all like to be forgiven for thinking things worse than that.  Now, for disgusting reasons, once it hits the public forgiveness is an impossibility because it won't sate the rage.  And that's why people _are _oversensitive and _do _look for offense because they _enjoy _raking people over the coals for things similar to stuff they themselves have been forgiven for - and expected that forgiveness, too.

And obviously I'm going a bit out of bounds here.  To me, this is bigger than Sterling.  A lot bigger.  And it's being used as a political weapon as well.  That's as dangerous as you can get and letting any of it slide, IMO, is letting far too much go.



Dannager said:


> No, you didn't. But you insist on acting like a grievous injustice was committed against Sterling because a conversation whose details he probably wanted to keep between him and his girlfriend was instead heard by far more.




No, I don't.  I'm saying there's some injustice and I'm saying he was wronged.  I've also said I get the NBA's position on the matter and understand their rights.  What I've consistently argued against is that his specific to this case_ words _were effectively _actions _in his NBA business.  They were not and that's why the punishment seems extreme.  



Dannager said:


> Except that there's no hypersensitivity or looking-for-offense going on here. I hate that stuff, too, but the guy said some truly, horrifically racist things. We're not talking about stuff that could _maybe be construed as racism if you tilt your head._ He knew what he was saying, he knew the potential consequences if his racism ever came to light, he knew who he was saying it to, and he said those things anyway.




I was pretty off topic when saying that bit.  I kinda got carried away with my thoughts on the more global problem this one incident is simply one small example of.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 21, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Generally I agree that people are overly sensitive and too quick to take offense. But in this instance the guy said some outrageously racist things, and that shouldn't be ignored either. I see this as a situation where there are two potential wrongs: the first is sterlings very clear and obvious racism (and any possibility that he was speaking in anger or misunderstood was pretty much eliminated during that apology of his), the second is the recording itself. If the recording was consensual then it is fair game in my opinion.
> 
> I think it is possible to be disgusted by sterling but also be concerned about the nature of privacy and eavesdropping in the country.




All he did was _say _stuff.  He never acted on any of it and that, to me, is a pretty damned important distinction.  Again, we'd all be in jail because we've all probably said we'd like to harm someone at some point in our lives.  I absolutely cannot allow the thought that we can take something from someone for something they said to go unchallenged.  Too many awful things have been done because of exactly that.  If you don't fall exactly into line with what _we _think, well, you're SOL or worse.  We've seen what happens when religion or a political movement takes that tack and yet we don't seem to care too much about the trend toward this now.  Sterling isn't alone - this crap happens pretty much every day for things a lot less offensive than what he said.  And _that's _what we care about over anything that's actually happening around us (politics - can't be more specific).  

Meh, it's sickening to me and it's scary that no one cares.  It's not like we only go after racists.  Hell, we paint people as racist when they aren't just so we _can _go after 'em.  This is just an example of the way bad place we're heading.  I was reminded of this quote in a different conversation yesterday and I find it once again in my mind:



> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
> ...






Grr ... dirty formatting ... anyhoo, I'm not saying we need to stand up for what Sterling said, I'm saying we need to stand up for his right to say it.  It's all happy kitty kat peaches an' cream until you're the one that finds yourself on the outs with contemporary thought.  If you don't believe that's possible, just look at the news and see some of the unbelievable stuff people have to apologize for saying now.  The 'Right to Remain Unoffended' stuff really does pose a real danger.  This is just an example.

By the way, I'm with you in the 'disgusted but concerned' camp.  What he said was terrible but bleep, man, we've all said terrible stuff.


​


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> All he did was _say _stuff.  He never acted on any of it and that, to me, is a pretty damned important distinction.  Again, we'd all be in jail because we've all probably said we'd like to harm someone at some point in our lives.  I absolutely cannot allow the thought that we can take something from someone for something they said to go unchallenged.  Too many awful things have been done because of exactly that.  If you don't fall exactly into line with what _we _think, well, you're SOL or worse.  We've seen what happens when religion or a political movement takes that tack and yet we don't seem to care too much about the trend toward this now.  Sterling isn't alone - this crap happens pretty much every day for things a lot less offensive than what he said.  And _that's _what we care about over anything that's actually happening around us (politics - can't be more specific).
> 
> sts.  Hell, we paint




I think there are all sorts of examples of people taking offense where it isn't warranted, open discussion being hampered by things like trigger warnings or crusaders who go after anyone who doesn't adopt the approved manner of speaking about these sorts of things...but this wasn't a case of a guy being misunderstood, being crude or just making an attempt at humor, a bit insensitive, he was being pretty blatantly racist. Now i agree that the recording itself may be an issue if it was illegally obtained, becasue the right to privacy is important. But i do not think someone who somes out and says classically racist things can expect no fallout. And it isnt like we are doing anything to the man, the NBA is doing it. It is just the product of belonging to an organization. When you sign up for that kind of entity, you agree to be held liable for certain things, and that can inlcude maintaining the public image of the organization. 

I do think there are plenty of instances in comedy, academia, the arts, and even gaming where crusading for political correctness has gone too far and has inhibited discussion. I do not believe this is such a case.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Grr ... dirty formatting ... anyhoo, I'm not saying we need to stand up for what Sterling said, I'm saying we need to stand up for his right to say it.  It's all happy kitty kat peaches an' cream until you're the one that finds yourself on the outs with contemporary thought.  If you don't believe that's possible, just look at the news and see some of the unbelievable stuff people have to apologize for saying now.  The 'Right to Remain Unoffended' stuff really does pose a real danger.  This is just an example.
> 
> By the way, I'm with you in the 'disgusted but concerned' camp.  What he said was terrible but bleep, man, we've all said terrible stuff.
> 
> ...




He still has every right to say those things. Look i am with you on the point that people are way too eager to be offended and almost where it like a badge of pride anytime someone makes a minor mistep or doesn't speak in the most current form of politically correct lingo. But the guy said some prett reprehensible things that no amount of context is going to improve. And we do not need to start comparing him to holocaust victims. He is being penalized by a private organization that he belongs to, not imprisoned and killed by a government that dislikes his heritage.


----------



## Dannager (May 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> No, I don't.  I'm saying there's some injustice and I'm saying he was wronged.




Except you don't know that there is, and you don't know that he was. There is no evidence either way, so far. Instead of taking the _neutral_ position ("We don't know what happened, so I'll reserve judgment on whether harm was dealt to him until we know more.") you are taking the _affirmative_ position ("We don't know what happened, but I'm going to assume that he was dealt harm regardless."). It's worth asking why you've decided to do that.



> I've also said I get the NBA's position on the matter and understand their rights.  What I've consistently argued against is that his specific to this case_ words _were effectively _actions _in his NBA business.  They were not and that's why the punishment seems extreme.




His words jeopardized more than a dozen corporate sponsorships of the league, causing real harm to the association's finances. It doesn't matter that they were "just words". This is a perfect example of the sort of damage words alone can cause.

Why are you so emphatic that words don't count when everything we're seeing demonstrates that they very clearly do?



> All he did was _say _stuff.




Words have consequences. If you believe differently, you are wrong.



> He never acted on any of it and that,  to me, is a pretty damned important distinction.




And, to the rest of us, it isn't a terribly important distinction. Acting on it would have been _worse_, but at that point it's just a matter of degrees.



> Again, we'd all be in  jail because we've all probably said we'd like to harm someone at some  point in our lives.




This is a total non-sequitur.



> I absolutely cannot allow the thought that we can  take something from someone for something they said to go unchallenged.




You absolutely _*will*_ allow it, because you absolutely have no power to do anything about it. Words matter, period. That's how the world you live in works. That's how the world you live in has _*always*_ worked.



> Too many awful things have been done because of exactly that.




Which is why we have first amendment protections _*from the government*_. Which this has nothing to do with.



> If you  don't fall exactly into line with what _we _think, well, you're SOL  or worse.




*YES.* If you're a private organization, you have the _*freedom*_ to exercise your legal power over those you feel you need to distance yourself from when they do something for which their contract provides consequences.



> We've seen what happens when religion or a political  movement takes that tack and yet we don't seem to care too much about  the trend toward this now.




This is neither religious nor political. This is a private organization taking legal action against a private individual.



> Sterling isn't alone - this crap happens  pretty much every day for things a lot less offensive than what he said.   And _that's _what we care about over anything that's actually happening around us (politics - can't be more specific).




Then reserve your outrage for those things.



> Grr ... dirty formatting ... anyhoo, I'm not saying we need to stand up  for what Sterling said, I'm saying we need to stand up for his right to  say it.




*NO ONE IS CHALLENGING HIS RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING.*

You need to internalize that. No one has stopped him from saying _*anything*_. Which is why he has been able to go on talk and news shows and _*continue*_ to say incredibly racist things in the intervening weeks. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been killed. He hasn't had his tongue cut out.

But that doesn't mean that he has the right to avoid all consequences from non-government entities for what he has said. He doesn't get to. We, as private citizens, are _*free*_ to do whatever we wish (within our legal rights) to demonstrate our disapproval. And that includes the NBA exercising the clause of its contract with him (a contract he willingly signed) to punish him.



> It's all happy kitty kat peaches an' cream until you're the one  that finds yourself on the outs with contemporary thought.  If you  don't believe that's possible, just look at the news and see some of the  unbelievable stuff people have to apologize for saying now.  The 'Right  to Remain Unoffended' stuff really does pose a real danger.  This is  just an example.




No, it isn't. This is you trying to twist a non-issue into a banner for your personal crusade against political correctness. And we all know it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> And why is what he said costing the organization money?  Cuz of the witch hunt mentality of our society.




1) Because most advertisers don't want to be associated with a racist.  As such, they threatened or actually did withdraw advertising dollars from the Clippers and the league.

2) Because the players don't want to be associated with a racist- especially minority players in the context of racist "owners".  As such, they threatened a league wide work stoppage.



> If people could separate what someone says from what they do this wouldn't happen.




His words are just the latest episode in a known pattern- the hateful cherry on the top of his racist sundae, if you will- including antagonizing his own players.



> I'm saying there's some injustice and I'm saying he was wronged.  I've also said I get the NBA's position on the matter and understand their rights.  What I've consistently argued against is that his specific to this case_ words _were effectively _actions _in his NBA business.  They were not and that's why the punishment seems extreme.




What injustice?

Sorry, but the NBA is a private organization.  He doesn't own the Clippers outright- he's a franchise owner who gets to operate the franchise _with the permission of the NBA, subject to their rules, by the force of the contract he signed._  If he had acted and spoken analogously as the operator of a MacDonald's franchise, he could have similarly been stripped of his rights to own & operate.

Such contract clauses get upheld in court all day, every day.  And as a lawyer & businessman, he knew that.

The only injustice that *might* have occurred is if the NBA violated its own procedures or state/federal law in disciplining him, which is what he's alleging in his lawsuit...which lawsuit he may have torpedoed by his own actions if the LA times article is correct.

As for words as actions?  Again, the law has no problem with that.  Familiarize yourself with the restrictions to free speech & association under the Uniform Code of Military Justice sometime.  Or what happens to secular employees of religious groups who get fired for things they said on Facebook.

In short, "mere words" have been enough to get you in trouble under the Common Law for several hundred years, now, depending on what those words were, how they were said, and when/where.


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2014)

If he has the right to say whatever he wants, why don't I have the right to vote with my wallet and refuse to give him money?

Why should I not be allowed to react in whatever manner (short of illegal actions of course) I see fit when learning what this guy says?

Why should he be given safe haven to say whatever he wants to say, free of any repercussions?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2014)

Hussar said:


> If he has the right to say whatever he wants, why don't I have the right to vote with my wallet and refuse to give him money?
> 
> Why should I not be allowed to react in whatever manner (short of illegal actions of course) I see fit when learning what this guy says?
> 
> Why should he be given safe haven to say whatever he wants to say, free of any repercussions?



+1

And why can't the group that let him join their little club kick him out when he violated the rules he contractually agreed not to violate?


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2014)

Reminds me of this:

http://m.xkcd.com/1357/

A little in ungrandma friendly for slightly salty language.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 22, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> +1
> 
> And why can't the group that let him join their little club kick him out when he violated the rules he contractually agreed not to violate?




I have unease over the NBA being run as a private club.  I have to pause and think about that.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> I have unease over the NBA being run as a private club.  I have to pause and think about that.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB



Why?  That is EXACTLY what it is.

You can't merely start singing players to contracts, form a team, and start scheduling games against the Spurs & Bulls.

1) you have to apply to buy the rights to operate a team from the NBA

2) they investigate you

3) if you are approved by the others, you are then given a contract to sign

It is this structure that is going to cost Sterling's wife.  She is claiming that ownership of the Clippers is community property in the state of California, and as such, the NBA can't take the team away from her, since she didn't violate the the terms of ownership.

Normally, in a community property state, the presumption is that any property acquired during a marriage is community property.  The problem is, she was never vetted by the NBA and never signed their contract- she was never admitted to the club.

And clubs are different.  Clubs control their own membership; it ISN'T property that belongs to the member.  So, unless the club says otherwise, you can't become a club member by the operation of probate law or invoking Commuinty property statutes.  You can't merely buy your way into the club, either.  While you CAN buy an NBA franchise from a current owner, that contract for sale is only valid if the transfer is approved by the NBA.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> I have unease over the NBA being run as a private club.  I have to pause and think about that.
> 
> Thx!
> 
> TomB




Sports are like that, and they often have rules you wouldn't encounter in a normal job or occupation. To compete in Boxing or the UFC for example you have to have be examined by a doctor prior to the fight and you have to have a blood test to check for HIV (the results of which you must show to the organization responsible for the event). Frankly I think the latter is pretty good rule to help protect fighters because these sports expose you to blood by their very nature. But it isn't a rule I would want to see implemented at an office job. Stuff like that is just part of being a participant in a sport. It can extend to other things. In Taekwondo for example you conduct outside the gym and competitions can be factored into any decision about you made by the WTF. You always have the option of not being a part of the WTF.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 22, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why?  That is EXACTLY what it is.
> 
> You can't merely start singing players to contracts, form a team, and start scheduling games against the Spurs & Bulls.
> 
> ...




Additional text omitted.

What gives me pause is the degree to which the organizations are in the public view, and the degree to which there are specific legal rules in place, and the degree to which public resources are devoted to the sport (arena, the university driven player pipeline).

The question that I have is why _isn't_ the league a kind of public accommodation (given the public investment, see above), in support of the league.  I can see business related requirements (maintain a roster, have certain assurances of meeting a level of competitiveness, have assurances of meeting financial commitments, work within a marketing and reporting structure as set by the league, and so forth), and have a process to measure the fitness of applicants that selected membership from applicants.

The whole business seems far to publicly entrenched to be run as a private club.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 22, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Additional text omitted.
> 
> What gives me pause is the degree to which the organizations are in the public view, and the degree to which there are specific legal rules in place, and the degree to which public resources are devoted to the sport (arena, the university driven player pipeline).
> 
> ...




Wouldn't that make stuff like this even more common. If it becomes public, then that involves tax money and every little controversy is instantly political (it would be like the baseball steroid committes times ten). Now the NBA can basically do what it wants, and heeds market pressures. But if public funding were on the line then they couldnt do anything that pissed off anyone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> What gives me pause is the degree to which the organizations are in the public view, and the degree to which there are specific legal rules in place, and the degree to which public resources are devoted to the sport (arena, the university driven player pipeline).
> 
> The question that I have is why _isn't_ the league a kind of public accommodation (given the public investment, see above), in support of the league.  I can see business related requirements (maintain a roster, have certain assurances of meeting a level of competitiveness, have assurances of meeting financial commitments, work within a marketing and reporting structure as set by the league, and so forth), and have a process to measure the fitness of applicants that selected membership from applicants.
> 
> ...




FWIW, you forgot their Anti-Trust exemption.

But you're putting the horse before the cart.  The simple reason it isn't a public accommodation is because it is a private club, and there is no legal grounds for forcing them to be otherwise.  In fact, it would probably be unconstitutional to do so, since one of our fundamental rights is freedom of association.

All kinds of private clubs operate all kinds of business around the USA...but that doesn't mean they're beyond the law.  They still have to conform to the laws of the USA, as well as the state and cities in which they operate.

And merely doing a lot of business doesn't make you NOT a club.

Look at the Krewes of New Orleans I mentioned before: they put on the Mardi Gras parades, and every last one is a private club.  A bunch of them were successfully sued for having racist admissions policies, so they had to choose between continuing their racist admissions policies or staging their parades.  They chose racism.  So a whole bunch of parades are no longer held...but new ones- operated by non-discriminatory Krewes like Harry Connick, Jr.'s Orpheus- have risen up and filled the gap.

Sports leagues & teams DO get a lot of things their way.  But that's because they make a lot of money, and money talks.  The Dallas Cowboys used to play at Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas (near where I used to live) and had a training facility in Valley Ranch (near where I live now).  Their business discussions with city governments around here lead to all kinds of interesting political & PR battles.

While my father was part of a group erecting a medical building, they had to pay the city to get a turn lane for improved access.  Meanwhile, the Cowboys had tax breaks thrown at them.  And when the battle over the stadium began, the Mayor refused the deal they offered.  She felt that the city didn't need to give tax breaks And pass bonds to find a stadium that Mr. Jones could have built with 3 years worth of the revenue from just the luxury suites at Texas Stadium.

And Arlington got the Cowboys by voting in the bonds and tax breaks to build the new stadium.  The training facility has also moved on.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 22, 2014)

I couldn't remember the correct phrasing for the Anti-Trust exception, but that furthers my point.  And I understand that the current status arose from a prior status which looked very different.  And I understand the degree which money is involved and influences matters.  I'm not expecting any changes in the next decade (which is as far as I'm willing to make predictions).

It's just that today, with the huge entrenchment, that the league is a private club is jarring.  The situation seems off balance.

Not sure if this is a good analogy, but if I sought out ownership of a local bank, or golf course, my views seem unlikely to directly interfere with my ownership.  In practice, I might have a problem finding employees, or finding customers, but that is an indirect issue.  I do suppose the PGA or WPGA could deny my golf course whatever membership or association is meaningful for their organization.  But, I would not expect that FDIC or Federal Reserve Board could prevent me from owning a bank.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Cor Azer (May 22, 2014)

Well, that's the thing - nobody is stopping him from creating his own league (Vince McMahon did). You cannot, however, just declare yourself a team in someone else's league.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 22, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> I couldn't remember the correct phrasing for the Anti-Trust exception, but that furthers my point.




I really don't see how- it's like a Sword of Damocles over their heads of all the US pro leagues.  If they piss off the Feds enough, that exemption gets yanked, and they can no longer operate in their current form.  They can't act as a group in order to standardize...well..._anything._ No collective TV rights deal, no league-wide rules on pay, minimum player ages, retirement benefits.  No salary cap issues to prevent one team from buying up all the talent.



> It's just that today, with the huge entrenchment, that the league is a private club is jarring.  The situation seems off balance.




Not seeing what you're getting at.



> Not sure if this is a good analogy, but if I sought out ownership of a local bank, or golf course, my views seem unlikely to directly interfere with my ownership.  In practice, I might have a problem finding employees, or finding customers, but that is an indirect issue.  I do suppose the PGA or WPGA could deny my golf course whatever membership or association is meaningful for their organization.  But, I would not expect that FDIC or Federal Reserve Board could prevent me from owning a bank.




Correct, the PGA/WPGA don't have to let you join their tour.  AND they can boot you off of it.  Augusta's discriminatory race and gender policies almost got that club kicked off.  Unlike the Krewes of NOLA, though, they decided it was better for them to let guys like Tiger Woods join their club as opposed to losing the income stream that was the Augusta National PGA event...

But make no mistake, owning a bank is also subject to regulations.  Not just anyone will be permitted ownership.



Cor Azer said:


> Well, that's the thing - nobody is stopping him from creating his own league (Vince McMahon did). You cannot, however, just declare yourself a team in someone else's league.



Exactly.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (May 23, 2014)

Mark Cuban wants to join the conversation then apologizes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2014)

MC is always a hoot.  

So far, in his tenure in the league, he's racked up 3 suspensions and almost $2M in fines himself.  Note: he usually matches his NBA fines with charitable donations.

This is a classic.  I get what he was saying, and he's right.  We all DO have our prejudices.  He just said it...poorly.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (May 23, 2014)

Let's all pause for a moment of creepiness.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2014)




----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think there are all sorts of examples of people taking offense where it isn't warranted, open discussion being hampered by things like trigger warnings or crusaders who go after anyone who doesn't adopt the approved manner of speaking about these sorts of things...but this wasn't a case of a guy being misunderstood, being crude or just making an attempt at humor, a bit insensitive, he was being pretty blatantly racist. Now i agree that the recording itself may be an issue if it was illegally obtained, becasue the right to privacy is important. But i do not think someone who somes out and says classically racist things can expect no fallout. And it isnt like we are doing anything to the man, the NBA is doing it. It is just the product of belonging to an organization. When you sign up for that kind of entity, you agree to be held liable for certain things, and that can inlcude maintaining the public image of the organization.
> 
> I do think there are plenty of instances in comedy, academia, the arts, and even gaming where crusading for political correctness has gone too far and has inhibited discussion. I do not believe this is such a case.




First, we _are_ the ones doing it.  Do you think the NBA would be acting on this if there was no public demand for action?  

Second, he _said _racist things, he did not _behave _in a racist manner in his NBA business life.  That's what's at issue here.  If he said he didn't want her to bring Magic to the games and then refused Magic entry that would be a far different thing.  I can say I'd like to eat a steak for dinner every night but if I never actually do it I'll be dead from starvation.



Bedrockgames said:


> He still has every right to say those things. Look i am with you on the point that people are way too eager to be offended and almost where it like a badge of pride anytime someone makes a minor mistep or doesn't speak in the most current form of politically correct lingo. But the guy said some prett reprehensible things that no amount of context is going to improve. And we do not need to start comparing him to holocaust victims. He is being penalized by a private organization that he belongs to, not imprisoned and killed by a government that dislikes his heritage.




I never compared him to holocaust victims.  I loosely compared two environments.

The point is that if the consequences are so dire that they effectively remove the option to say what you want to say you are then effectively prohibited from saying it.  A choice between saying something and losing your job is no choice at all.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Dannager said:


> Except you don't know that there is, and you don't know that he was. There is no evidence either way, so far. Instead of taking the _neutral_ position ("We don't know what happened, so I'll reserve judgment on whether harm was dealt to him until we know more.") you are taking the _affirmative_ position ("We don't know what happened, but I'm going to assume that he was dealt harm regardless."). It's worth asking why you've decided to do that.




That's a good question with a simple answer: I did so because others assumed that he knew.  I also supported my assertion as best I could without ever once claiming it was what actually happened.  I don't feel that I should be expected to add that clarification to every single post I make on the subject.



> His words jeopardized more than a dozen corporate sponsorships of the league, causing real harm to the association's finances. It doesn't matter that they were "just words". This is a perfect example of the sort of damage words alone can cause.




Nope, the release of his words did that.  If I say some nasty things about your mother that you never hear, what harm did they cause?



> Why are you so emphatic that words don't count when everything we're seeing demonstrates that they very clearly do?




Cuz they don't.  Actions count, not words.  The only reason his words are even up for discussion is because of someone else's action - the release of the tapes.

Plus I'm a big boy and I understand that words don't really do anything.  I remember that 'sticks and stones' thing from when I was a kid and decided long ago to take it to heart because words can only do to me what I let them.  

I mean, there's countless examples of words vs actions where it's obvious the words did nothing.  



> Words have consequences. If you believe differently, you are wrong.




I do believe that I'm arguing the consequences were too severe.  And I also believe that I've (repeatedly) said the NBA is within its right.



> And, to the rest of us, it isn't a terribly important distinction. Acting on it would have been _worse_, but at that point it's just a matter of degrees.




Yes, the difference in degree between someone saying they're gonna cave your face in with a bat and them actually doing it.



> This is a total non-sequitur.




And this is a rather weak attempt at a dodge.



> You absolutely _*will*_ allow it, because you absolutely have no power to do anything about it. Words matter, period. That's how the world you live in works. That's how the world you live in has _*always*_ worked.




Hmm ... so you're saying my words here aren't going to do anything?  That they don't matter?  Thanks for finally understanding my point.



> *YES.* If you're a private organization, you have the _*freedom*_ to exercise your legal power over those you feel you need to distance yourself from when they do something for which their contract provides consequences.




Never argued the NBA couldn't do it.  Have you actually read a word I've written?  For someone so adamant about the power of words you seem to treat them pretty casually.



> This is neither religious nor political. This is a private organization taking legal action against a private individual.




And, if you'd have actually read what I said, you'd have realized that I was branching out a bit.  This case is a symptom of a much larger problem which does have religious and political elements to it.  I'd love to explain but I can't here.  Well, I could but then I'd be warned or banned.  Not really free to get into it.  



> Then reserve your outrage for those things.




I think I'm gonna save it for people who want to argue with me while also not reading what I say.

*



			NO ONE IS CHALLENGING HIS RIGHT TO SAY ANYTHING.
		
Click to expand...


*
I've explained multiple times how this fairy tale illusion is exactly that: a fairy tale illusion.  If the consequence of saying something is sufficiently grave then you're not really free to say it.  We can _say _you're free but the reality is you're not.  See how that works?  The words don't _do _anything in reality.



> You need to internalize that. No one has stopped him from saying _*anything*_. Which is why he has been able to go on talk and news shows and _*continue*_ to say incredibly racist things in the intervening weeks. He hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been killed. He hasn't had his tongue cut out.




No one except the NBA, the sponsors, the players, the public ... but yeah, aside from those people nobody is stopping him from saying anything at all.

You talk about consequences and yet don't see that a consequence of imposing sufficiently severe consequences is an effective ban.  Internalize _that.  _



> But that doesn't mean that he has the right to avoid all consequences from non-government entities for what he has said. He doesn't get to. We, as private citizens, are _*free*_ to do whatever we wish (within our legal rights) to demonstrate our disapproval. And that includes the NBA exercising the clause of its contract with him (a contract he willingly signed) to punish him.




You're right.  We as a people are free to impose language bans on others via public witch hunts.  

And, again (in what must be at least the 10th time), I've never once said the NBA can't do what it's doing.



> No, it isn't. This is you trying to twist a non-issue into a banner for your personal crusade against political correctness. And we all know it.




I'm glad you think you know what's going on.  You're wrong but hey, don't listen to me.  It's not like you've been listening at all anyway.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) Because most advertisers don't want to be associated with a racist.  As such, they threatened or actually did withdraw advertising dollars from the Clippers and the league.




Why not?  Cuz the people don't like it, that's why.



> 2) Because the players don't want to be associated with a racist- especially minority players in the context of racist "owners".  As such, they threatened a league wide work stoppage.




This is part of the witch hunt stuff as well.   



> His words are just the latest episode in a known pattern- the hateful cherry on the top of his racist sundae, if you will- including antagonizing his own players.




The only pattern we can be certain of is a pattern of allegations.  That's why the NBA is going after him more for this and the allegations that he tried to hide evidence than anything else.  

I'm not saying he's not a racist - I believe he is.  I'm saying that this stuff people accused him of before wasn't proven and isn't cause for what's happening now.



> What injustice?




The release of the tapes (if he was unaware).



> Sorry, but the NBA is a private organization.  He doesn't own the Clippers outright- he's a franchise owner who gets to operate the franchise _with the permission of the NBA, subject to their rules, by the force of the contract he signed._  If he had acted and spoken analogously as the operator of a MacDonald's franchise, he could have similarly been stripped of his rights to own & operate.
> 
> Such contract clauses get upheld in court all day, every day.  And as a lawyer & businessman, he knew that.




Never said the NBA couldn't do it.  Do I need to put that in bold, underlined italics at the end of every post or something?



> The only injustice that *might* have occurred is if the NBA violated its own procedures or state/federal law in disciplining him, which is what he's alleging in his lawsuit...which lawsuit he may have torpedoed by his own actions if the LA times article is correct.




Again, that's not the injustice I'm talking about.  I'm curious to see how he goes about this court case, though.  I don't think he's gonna save himself with it but it should be interesting.



> As for words as actions?  Again, the law has no problem with that.  Familiarize yourself with the restrictions to free speech & association under the Uniform Code of Military Justice sometime.  Or what happens to secular employees of religious groups who get fired for things they said on Facebook.




What is and what should be are different things.  We're arguing different things.



> In short, "mere words" have been enough to get you in trouble under the Common Law for several hundred years, now, depending on what those words were, how they were said, and when/where.




Never should have been.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Hussar said:


> If he has the right to say whatever he wants, why don't I have the right to vote with my wallet and refuse to give him money?
> 
> Why should I not be allowed to react in whatever manner (short of illegal actions of course) I see fit when learning what this guy says?
> 
> Why should he be given safe haven to say whatever he wants to say, free of any repercussions?




You are allowed - I never said you weren't.  What I said was your reaction effectively disallows what he's saying.  Well, that's not accurate.  Your action alone does not, obviously.  The collective action, however, imposes an effective ban on speech and that makes me uncomfortable at best.

And I find the 'he can say what he wants to' thing dishonest.  Cuz it is.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> +1
> 
> And why can't the group that let him join their little club kick him out when he violated the rules he contractually agreed not to violate?




*sigh*

This is getting incredibly tiresome.  Is that the goal or something?  Shut me up by Strawmanning me to death?  I _never _said the NBA can't do what it's doing.  Not once.  And I've said that so many times I can't even remember.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 23, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I never compared him to holocaust victims.  I loosely compared two environments.
> 
> The point is that if the consequences are so dire that they effectively remove the option to say what you want to say you are then effectively prohibited from saying it.  A choice between saying something and losing your job is no choice at all.




The quote you posted was about the government literally coming to round people up because of who they were. That is not analogous to this situation at all. The holocaust wasnt about freedom of speech.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> MC is always a hoot.
> 
> So far, in his tenure in the league, he's racked up 3 suspensions and almost $2M in fines himself.  Note: he usually matches his NBA fines with charitable donations.
> 
> This is a classic.  I get what he was saying, and he's right.  We all DO have our prejudices.  He just said it...poorly.




I don't think he said it poorly.  Hell, he went out of his way to make his bias show as equal.  People just get offended too easily.  The same people that wanted him to apologize probably feel exactly the same way - hell, I'd wager you do, too - not saying you were one looking for an apology, though.

Meh, it's all just so many people lying blatantly (not saying you're one).  We think speaking out against this stuff makes us look better - and that's what we want, to _look_ better.  It's the appearance and nothing more.  The reality is we're not that good and there's no reason to be.  The dishonesty is preventing real progress and nobody cares.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The quote you posted was about the government literally coming to round people up because of who they were. That is not analogous to this situation at all. The holocaust wasnt about freedom of speech.




Then you missed my point entirely.  Now, which one of us is supposed to apologize for that?  

Seriously, though, you're hyperfocusing on the words.  I'm not saying that 'they' are gonna come and round up everyone who says something 'they' don't like and gas 'em in a shower and burn their bodies in massive ovens constructed specifically for the purpose, I'm saying that if we don't defend this now - even if we don't agree with what's said - eventually we'll be in a position that nothing is defensible.  I speak now so that hopefully someone will be left to speak for me if that need ever arises.  The real goal, of course, is to never have that happen, to stop the trend now.  

Bro, you're not looking at the message of that passage because you're too busy looking at the history.  Those words were written in a specific time about a specific event but they're powerful enough to transcend it.  In other words, I didn't use it to literally refer to anything.


----------



## Bedrockgames (May 23, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Bro, you're not looking at the message of that passage because you're too busy looking at the history.  Those words were written in a specific time about a specific event but they're powerful enough to transcend it.  In other words, I didn't use it to literally refer to anything.




You can't both invoke the holocaust and not invoke it. Every one knows what that passage refers to and what historical context it was set against. Using that quote immediately invokes the holocaust. Do what you want but it is a rhetorical tactic people are going to call out.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (May 23, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> You can't both invoke the holocaust and not invoke it. Every one knows what that passage refers to and what historical context it was set against. Using that quote immediately invokes the holocaust. Do what you want but it is a rhetorical tactic people are going to call out.




... yeah, people who don't understand what I was doing (protip: I wasn't invoking the holocaust) in spite of my explanations will call it out.  And I really won't care that they do.  I compared _nothing _to the hololcaust.  If someone can't see that because they refuse to look deeper there's nothing I can do.  If you want to believe I'm saying 'they' are coming to take you to the train station, go ahead.  I obviously can't stop you and I see no reason in trying to politely convince you again.  

And people say words _do _things.  Wow ... the number of times people have either ignored what I've said or blatantly refused to listen to an explanation pretty much proves that words don't do jack.  I find this ... satisfyingly amusing.  I have six letters I'd love to post but have been asked not to.  I _could _post them, of course, but then I'd likely be banned so, you know ... I can't.

Man, I love this.  I really do.  There's real life examples of a few of my points happening in the argument in which I'm trying to make them.  You can't ask for more than that.  Er, I guess I _could _ask for others to actually take a look at what's happening and see it but, you know, words don't ... and there it is again!  Awesome!


----------



## Umbran (May 23, 2014)

This thread has been Godwinned.  That's enough.  Thread closed.


----------

