Clippers, Silver, and Freedom of Speech, Privacy and Confidence?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Was just curious about this. I get that the guy has some serious issues, and all the dislike, even hate towards him is justified, he said those words.

But, like a search warrant of a home, what rights do the public have as far as being able to listen to what was supposed to be a confident, private conversation?

If we don’t have the right to have a confident conversation in this context, then in what context do we have freedom of speech and privacy?

I’m a little torn by this, the guy is a toolbag. I don’t like that he owns an NBA team NOW, but had this information not been seemingly illegally been offered to the masses I’d have gone about my day and his rights wouldn’t have been violated.

Just being honest. I know it’s wildly unpopular, and I’m defending a racist dude. At the same time I think I’d be defending the idea of privacy and being able to have a private conversation in confidence with someone, without having to worry about being basically ostracized by the public, making me unprofitable.

If you ask me this is similar to a situation where there is a seizure without a warrant, and evidence is found. In this case evidence isn’t permitted in the court. It’s a little too parallel for me to be comfortable with is what I’m saying.

Are his freedoms of speech and privacy trumped by the contracts he has with the commission of NBA owners? It seems like once things are subject to public opinion our rights are thrown out the door to please the, “mob” of the public.

Race, being a touchy issue. And having my finger on this pulse, I thought it was a good subject to bring up. Cheers gents.

To clear up my position. I think his rights to privacy preceed the fact that he’s a blithering, idiotic racist. I don’t think he should be an owner based on the fact that he’s a racist and unprofitable, but the method in me gathering that information was a violation of his privacy.

2

AND…

CA is a two party consent state when it come to recording your conversation w/o your consent. Sterling can sue the shit out of the whore GF and TMZ.

And the “evidence” is now tainted. How the hell can the NBA get rid of him with illegal evidence? But they will. Oh, they will.

This is an interesting legal case to follow.

And in 2014, what is worse? To be called a Racist or a Child Rapist?

3

He may have known he was being recorded so that isn’t an issue. The NBA is not the government so the concept of illegal evidence does not apply.

The NBA does not care that he is a bigot. They knew he was long ago. The only reason it matters now is that it might affect the NBA economically. As long as his personal beliefs and racist business practices (apart from the Clippers) did not hurt the NBA’s bottom line they ignored it all.

4

Ever get the feeling that Sterling set this whole thing up? He has his girlfriend tape him going off on a racist rant and it conveniently gets out into the world.

Why? The team is worth an estimated $575 million on the market. Less the drama, there may not be much of a market for the team.

But get a lot of concerned people in a bidding war to make themselves look better it could top $600 million. $25 + million is nothing to sneeze up. Toss the trollop girlfriend a cool $1 million in cash.

Rob

5

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

Why? The team is worth an estimated $575 million on the market. Less the drama, there may not be much of a market for the team.
[/quote]

That’s a Forbes valuation. When the Dodgers went up for sale, Forbes had valued them at $800MM. They sold for $2.15B.

Sterling would be smart to get out now. His ownership will taint merchandise sales, talent acquisition, and advertising deals.

6

It will be interesting to see if charges are forthcoming in regards to the illegal taping of Sterling’s conversation. If not, a bad precedent in which your private conversations will be fair game for all to access will occur. If this were a criminal case, his conversation would not be permissible as evidence under the doctrine of “fruit of the poisonous tree”. I don’t know if California civil law has any such similar safeguards which Sterling could use to defend himself against the actions of the NBA commissioner.

P.S. I am in no way defending what Sterling said. So simmer down race baiters.

7

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

Why? The team is worth an estimated $575 million on the market. Less the drama, there may not be much of a market for the team.
[/quote]

That’s a Forbes valuation. When the Dodgers went up for sale, Forbes had valued them at $800MM. They sold for $2.15B.

Sterling would be smart to get out now. His ownership will taint merchandise sales, talent acquisition, and advertising deals.
[/quote]

Pretty much this. He was CERTAINLY setup you can tell that from just listening to the tapes, but he’s going to land on his feet quite nicely from the sale of the Clippers. It’s hard for me to feel bad for a known racist who is banging hot chicks much younger than him and the “fallout” from this scandal will be him netting a cool billion from the sale of his team.

That said, it’s bullshit that he was setup and he was clearly baited by the gal. I’m not going to feel sorry for him though, he’s a rich ignorant fucker with a long history of this type of crap. And he got caught by a clear money hungry female who was only with him for his money.

Cautionary tale for rich old people who don’t realize that anymore privacy doesn’t exist. You see this in the political arena all the time with “private” fundraisers managing to get taped. It’s the world we currently live in. Best to make sure you fully trust the people you’re around.

8

To an organization, it doesn’t matter how information got out. It’s out and they must respond as part of their product. Their constitution/by-laws allows such actions.

The NBA actions to this vs the Civil/Criminal actions by the State are not comparable.

I guess be more careful with whom you keep company?

9

CA is in the minority, but its a two-party/all party consent state.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

10

I dunno what the NBA owners constitution says, but the whole illegal and legal evidence thing really doesn’t apply here. I would think that as long as there isn’t something in their by laws against it, that basically this is just an instance of a privately owned group (the NBA) voting to get rid of one of its members because of PR issues. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue or anything even remotely resembling that. It is nothing more than what goes on in the business world very frequently.

11

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I dunno what the NBA owners constitution says, but the whole illegal and legal evidence thing really doesn’t apply here. I would think that as long as there isn’t something in their by laws against it, that basically this is just an instance of a privately owned group (the NBA) voting to get rid of one of its members because of PR issues. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue or anything even remotely resembling that. It is nothing more than what goes on in the business world very frequently. [/quote]

Exactly.

Imagine a McDonald’s franchise owner saying something similar about their customers, telling his girlfriend he doesn’t mind if she hangs around with black dudes, just don’t bring them into the store.

Good-bye, franchise!

12

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I dunno what the NBA owners constitution says, but the whole illegal and legal evidence thing really doesn’t apply here. I would think that as long as there isn’t something in their by laws against it, that basically this is just an instance of a privately owned group (the NBA) voting to get rid of one of its members because of PR issues. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue or anything even remotely resembling that. It is nothing more than what goes on in the business world very frequently. [/quote]

Yeah the number of people who fuckup the whole freedom of speech thing is mind blowing. You saw it with the Duck Dynasty controversy and now this. This is not a freedom of speech case. I would think he does have the potential to get the woman big time for the recording, but who knows.

13

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Was just curious about this. I get that the guy has some serious issues, and all the dislike, even hate towards him is justified, he said those words.

But, like a search warrant of a home, what rights do the public have as far as being able to listen to what was supposed to be a confident, private conversation?

If we don’t have the right to have a confident conversation in this context, then in what context do we have freedom of speech and privacy?

I’m a little torn by this, the guy is a toolbag. I don’t like that he owns an NBA team NOW, but had this information not been seemingly illegally been offered to the masses I’d have gone about my day and his rights wouldn’t have been violated.

Just being honest. I know it’s wildly unpopular, and I’m defending a racist dude. At the same time I think I’d be defending the idea of privacy and being able to have a private conversation in confidence with someone, without having to worry about being basically ostracized by the public, making me unprofitable.

If you ask me this is similar to a situation where there is a seizure without a warrant, and evidence is found. In this case evidence isn’t permitted in the court. It’s a little too parallel for me to be comfortable with is what I’m saying.

Are his freedoms of speech and privacy trumped by the contracts he has with the commission of NBA owners? It seems like once things are subject to public opinion our rights are thrown out the door to please the, “mob” of the public.

Race, being a touchy issue. And having my finger on this pulse, I thought it was a good subject to bring up. Cheers gents.

To clear up my position. I think his rights to privacy preceed the fact that he’s a blithering, idiotic racist. I don’t think he should be an owner based on the fact that he’s a racist and unprofitable, but the method in me gathering that information was a violation of his privacy. [/quote]

You’re absolutely correct. Personally I don’t care how someone feels about someone - did he ever do anything bad to a black person? Did he penalise any of the Clippers players because they were black? etc etc.
People are entitled to feel how they feel, but not to treat people badly because of race. I’ve not heard of any incident wherein he treated a black person in a bad/racist/nasty way. This is absolutely an invasion of his privacy, and the extreme reaction to Sterling I find an overreaction and suspect overcompensation.

14

540×960 63.4 KB

.

15

[quote]'nuffsaid wrote:
People are entitled to feel how they feel, but not to treat people badly because of race. I’ve not heard of any incident wherein he treated a black person in a bad/racist/nasty way.
[/quote]

16

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
I dunno what the NBA owners constitution says, but the whole illegal and legal evidence thing really doesn’t apply here. I would think that as long as there isn’t something in their by laws against it, that basically this is just an instance of a privately owned group (the NBA) voting to get rid of one of its members because of PR issues. This isn’t a freedom of speech issue or anything even remotely resembling that. It is nothing more than what goes on in the business world very frequently. [/quote]

Yeah the number of people who fuckup the whole freedom of speech thing is mind blowing. You saw it with the Duck Dynasty controversy and now this. This is not a freedom of speech case. [/quote]

Agreed. I like this cartoon’s little explanation of freedom of speech.

“The right to free speech means the government can’t arrest you for what you say. It doesn’t mean that anyone else has to listen to your bullshit or host you while you share it. The First Amendment doesn’t shield you from criticism or consequences. If you’re yelled at, boycotted, have your show cancelled, or get banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren’t being violated. It’s just that the people listening think you’re an asshole, and they’re showing you the door.”

17

[quote]'nuffsaid wrote:
People are entitled to feel how they feel, but not to treat people badly because of race. I’ve not heard of any incident wherein he treated a black person in a bad/racist/nasty way.
[/quote]

Oooooh yes. He’s been in trouble over treatment for more than 30 years. Been taken to court more than once. They knew about it, and they knew it was more than a drunk Mel Gibson incident–they knew he mistreated people.

They just let it slide until now because it wasn’t hurting their bottom line.

Kareem Abdul-Jabar had a good article in TIME about this. He calls out pretty much everyone from NBA to media to NAACP to girlfriend over the episode.

18

So long as the money kept flowing, everyone acted blind to this guy’s racism.

Now have a look at Shaq making fun of a guy with ectodermal dysplasia, I am waiting for him to be fined.

19

Leon Jenkins, president of the NAACP branch, has been a focus of attention in recent days.

While a Detroit judge, Jenkins in 1988 was indicted on federal bribery, conspiracy, mail fraud and racketeering charges, according records from the State Bar Court of California.

Authorities at the time alleged that Jenkins received gifts from those who appeared in his court and committed perjury, the records show. He was acquitted of criminal charges. But in 1994 the Michigan Supreme Court disbarred him, finding ?overwhelming evidence? that Jenkins ?sold his office and his public trust,? according to the bar records. . .

Like I said before, the swamp here is very deep.

20

I personally think an 80 year man having a 22 year old girl friend is his biggest problem .