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.
How the recordings became public is, of course.
Banned for life
- Status
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.
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
Adventurer
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
tomBitonti
Adventurer
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
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
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.
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
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
- Status
