Banned for life

[Zombie_Babies]

That doesn't make racism okay.



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



That doesn't make racism okay.



Had he not opened his mouth in the first place or been a tremendous racist nothing would have changed.



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



Speech is a form of action.



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.



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.



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!)

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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".

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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.