Banned for life

[Janx]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.