Banned for life

[Dannager]

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]

[PF][/PF]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

...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.

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]

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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?

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

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.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.



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.


No, really the are not.

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]

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]

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.