Banned for life

[Umbran]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.