Banned for life

[Guest 85555]

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?

Yes, it is relevant. I think when a personal statement like that explodes and results in the fallout this has, the question of how the private conversation was obtained is important. As bad as what he said was, it doesn't mean that any means used to acquire it was okay.

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.

Based on what I see people saying I am not so sure we all do.

 

[Guest 85555]

A) Not if consent was verbal, and B) not if she is concerned about a legal battle.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is verbal consent needs to be recorded (or at the very least it is highly advised to record consent----that is what I did when I conducted interviews).

 

[Guest 85555]

Her consent would be meaningless- HE and/or the business would have to consent, or be subpoenaed.

I was talking about his consent. Since she possessed the recordings, and I am assuming was the one conducting them, I would expect her to have some proof of consent. Now it is possible she didn't. I do not know the specific circumstances. But I would expect journalists to ask and answer some of these questions. All I am looking for are statements in articles like "Mr. Sterling declined to comment on whether consent was given for the recording" or "CNN obtained copy of the consent form proving her statement that he had tasked her with recording his daily conversations". And I am not saying consent wasn't given, it may well have been. Again, I think it is reasonable to want to know about this, and to be concerned that few covering the story have raised the issue.

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

Generally I agree that people are overly sensitive and too quick to take offense. But in this instance the guy said some outrageously racist things, and that shouldn't be ignored either. I see this as a situation where there are two potential wrongs: the first is sterlings very clear and obvious racism (and any possibility that he was speaking in anger or misunderstood was pretty much eliminated during that apology of his), the second is the recording itself. If the recording was consensual then it is fair game in my opinion.

I think it is possible to be disgusted by sterling but also be concerned about the nature of privacy and eavesdropping in the country.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Yes, that's why the tort exists.

though whether third parties should publish illegally obtained information is another question

"Should" is kind of covered by the "newsworthiness" defense.

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?

This IS normal- the newsworthiness defense is many decades old, going back at least to 1980. Campbell v. Seabury Press, 614 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1980)

But only public persons or those in a newsworthy positions get tossed out of court on that defense. As recently as the 2009 Kansas case, Peterson v. Moldofsky, the courts have reaffirmed Joe Schmoes' ability to go after third parties.

So yeah, YOU or I could stop a sex tape from further distribution, but a high-profile person would have a much tougher time of it.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes, that's why the tort exists.



"Should" is kind of covered by the "newsworthiness" defense.



This IS normal- the newsworthiness defense is many decades old, going back at least to 1980. Campbell v. Seabury Press, 614 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1980)

But only public persons or those in a newsworthy positions get tossed out of court on that defense. As recently as the 2009 Kansas case, Peterson v. Moldofsky, the courts have reaffirmed Joe Schmoes' ability to go after third parties.

So yeah, YOU or I could stop a sex tape from further distribution, but a high-profile person would have a much tougher time of it.

The 'could' is covered by the newsworthiness defense, not the 'should' (at least in my opinion).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I was talking about his consent.

I know what you're saying.

What I'm saying is proof of his consent to be recorded is unlikely to be in her possession. It will be in some file in a cabinet in his offices, a memo on his business' system. Someplace like that. It won't be a printout at her home.

Since she possessed the recordings, and I am assuming was the one conducting them, I would expect her to have some proof of consent.

We have no information on where the recordings were kept- her "possession" may have been as minimal as putting them in a safe in his office.

All I am looking for are statements in articles like "Mr. Sterling declined to comment on whether consent was given for the recording" or "CNN obtained copy of the consent form proving her statement that he had tasked her with recording his daily conversations".

Well, his silence on the matter is functionally identical to the first statement there, and CNN probably won't be able to get that kind of form* without a subpoena being filed by a party in a lawsuit. Now, the NBA and Sterling are going to court over his penalty, so you may see such show up, but it will be months, if ever, before that reaches the public eye.






* if such a form even exists. He could have enacted the policy with a verbal command. He might have been actively recording himself, then delegated the task with a casual "you do this- it's your job now."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is verbal consent needs to be recorded (or at the very least it is highly advised to record consent----that is what I did when I conducted interviews).

Not if it was an order from boss to employee.

 

[Guest 85555]

Not if it was an order from boss to employee.

Certainly, but that is the sort of thing CNN or any other news outlet should be able to find out. My point is it simply isn't even addressed in these articles.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The 'could' is covered by the newsworthiness defense, not the 'should' (at least in my opinion).

I understand- we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.