N.B.A. Commissioner Hands Clippers Owner Lifetime Ban

[August West]

I imagine the NBA has more lawyers than Sterling and they've been spending the last couple of days sussing out their options.

[N-OS X-tasy!]

C(-)ris wrote:
This was a private conversation and was he was not commenting as an owner or to anyone related to the NBA. I don't know what the legalities on recording conversations are in that state, but it was between him and a member of his family.

1) In CA (where this conversation presumably occurred), it is illegal to record a telephone conversation without informing the other party that the conversation is being recorded.

2) I highly doubt that Sterling's mistress would be classified as "a member of his family."

I agree that this situation is headed into uncharted territory. I agree with those who maintain the NBA may be on shaky ground here. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[SteveO]

What a shallow person.

[rjmacs]

Blankity Blank wrote:
[quote=C(-)ris]
[quote=rjmacs]
A good business decision and the right thing to do.

I wonder if we'll hear outcries about his "free speech" being impinged over this, as we did with Brandon Eich.

He was free to say whatever he wanted, and he did. The NBA is also free to do as they want. However, I'm not so sure the NBA was justified in their actions. This was a private conversation and was he was not commenting as an owner or to anyone related to the NBA. I don't know what the legalities on recording conversations are in that state, but it was between him and a member of his family. Doesn't make him any less of a bigot, but I wonder if the NBA can legally impose those penalties or if he is going to make a fortune in lawsuits against them. I'd find it hard to believe that they can force him to sell the team if he has broken no laws.
The conversation was in California, I believe, and my understanding is that consent of only one of the parties is required for recording in that state. And given that the league is only responding to what have become public utterances, regardless of Sterling's original intent or how they became public, and with them being genuine statements by Sterling -- which from Silver's statement today, it seems Sterling has copped to -- I'd guess they're okay there too. Particularly since part of those statements were to the effect that he did not want a specfic segment of the NBA audience attending league games in his venue. A statement and sentiment which would of course be directly damaging to the league in any number of ways; not the least of which is a lot of high profile, big ticket advertisers already pulling out of their dealings with the Clippers.

As far as sale of the team goes, they seem to be operating based on formal agreements already in place as part of being an owner of an NBA franchise, so my guess is they're on solid ground there.
Actually, California is an "all-party consent" state, so if Stiviano can't convince investigators that she had Sterling's consent to record, she could be in hot water, criminally and civilly.

As for whether it's 'legal' to ban him and force him to sell the team, that's chiefly a matter to be resolved by lawyers arguing over the league's bylaws and contractual obligations. The NBA is a franchise organization, and franchisees are subject to rules that protect the reputation and value of the league, not just the owners.

[Kraniac]

graylocks wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
A good business decision and the right thing to do.

I wonder if we'll hear outcries about his "free speech" being impinged over this, as we did with Brandon Eich.

i don't want to get into a free speech argument but i don't understand how NBA ownership works and how the league can ban him. is there a morality clause or something like that? lots of racists own businesses but no one takes their business away from them. what is the structure of the NBA that the organization has that level of control over multi-billionaire owners?
Im quite sure that there is code of conduct for NBA team owners which runs from being extremely specific to very general and subject to some form interpretation..Therein lies the real protection for the NBA in cases like these which have a certain amount of subjectivity

..high profile structures cover every inch of ass and asses.

[vision63]

When you join a league, you consent to it's rules, bylaws etc.It not the first time a team was removed from an owner. Though there is still a vote pending.

[vision63]

One good thing for the ladies, he's back on the market.

[Mike Johnson]

C(-)ris wrote: I wonder if the NBA can legally impose those penalties or if he is going to make a fortune in lawsuits against them. I'd find it hard to believe that they can force him to sell the team if he has broken no laws.

The NBA has a constitution -- it's not public, unfortunately -- and the toad signed on to it when he bought the team. It's a franchise. So of course they can force him to sell the team, just like Quiznos could force a franchise owner to sell. It's contract law, not Constitutional law.

I'm relieved the NBA reacted swiftly and strongly. I'm so sick of this crap, and I'm sick of people downplaying racism and its insidious effects. And private speech or public speech, it's still racism. Closeted racists are still racists.

[August West]

vision63 wrote:
One good thing for the ladies, he's back on the market.

miley-laughing001:

[Blankity Blank]

rjmacs wrote:
Actually, California is an "all-party consent" state, so if Stiviano can't convince investigators that she had Sterling's consent to record, she could be in hot water, criminally and civilly

Thanks, it's been awhile since I'd heard that commented on. I'd heard a few years ago California was a one party consent state, but I'm not surprised at that no longer being the case.