Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Looks like this boy is getting hauled over the coals for some fairly repulsive comments as recorded in what I think was a private conversation that were later made public:

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/04/29/clippers-owner-donald-sterling-banned-for-life-from-nba-fined-25-million-by-nba/


I agree that the guy comes off like a jackass and a fairly hateful person that I would want nothing to do with. My question here, though, is if it is just to penalize someone for what is said in a private conversation? Granted, his little plaything recorded it and made it public, but was he treating his players badly?
He pretty much was torpedoed, and I could see his players justly making for the door with all resonable speed, leaving him without any team.
The actions against him seem too much like thought police, however.

Are we now in a time and place where we have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private?

Seems like it. The only owner thusfar to speak to that is Mark Cuban, and he seems to be in the minority.

We've become a culture of instant gratification zealotry led by an irresponsible media dead set on shepherding people to their causes of political correct righteous indignation, seeking proverbial blood in unreasonable time frames.

This shouldn't have been a 3 day decision, and because silver was so quick to try and look like a hard ass, it's going to have long standing ramifications.

No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.

We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.

Yes.*
Probably but it doesn't matter.
Yes.

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.

We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.

But does that clause cover private speech? I could understand it if he was saying garbage like that in public and being in violation, but in his own home?

Relapse wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.

We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.

But does that clause cover private speech? I could understand it if he was saying garbage like that in public and being in violation, but in his own home?

http://xkcd.com/1357/
Yes. He said it, they found out, they acted. Fair is Fair. Now if he wants to get aggressive over somebody recording him illegally, let him. That's an entirely different matter.

He has a long history of this stuff.

And his speech was not private, at least not once it was leaked. The moment it became public he suffered public consequences. Part of his contracts stipulate that he cannot do anything that damages the league, and what he did damaged it.

But again, this is just the giant racism cherry on top of the BS Shake that he has been working on. He did not suffer from that alone.

But in the end it's no different than me sending someone a racist hate filled PM, then that person posts it in nuts & bolts saying "won't someone do something about him!" and then I'm banned over a private message.

Don't be an asshat, and never assume that your private bigoted worldview will stay private. Keep your mouth shut or realize that someone somehow can always get a hold of your "private" opinions.

I have to admit...
I did think this was about our currency.

 purplefood wrote:
I have to admit...
I did think this was about our currency.

Ditto, I was really confused initially.

Remember me?

Relapse wrote:
Are we now in a time and place where we have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private?

I believe we have been there for a while now. News stories of people being fired for postings they make on social media sites are not uncommon. While an argument can be made that social media postings are public postings, you could also argue that certain blogs (especially if identifying names and other markers are removed) and some "private" conversations with friends and family on social media sites could (should?) be considered private by their authors, and yet, when aired in public those "private" musings get people in trouble.

I think as a society we have largely moved away from expecting privacy in many of our private conversations, and we are continuing to blur the lines between what is public and private as technology advancements allow us to "share" so much of our lives.


I had heard on the radio last night that Sterling asked his girlfriend/assistant to make these recordings because he suffered from memory loss and liked to play back conversations for details he had missed. Has that been confirmed? Or was it just bs?

If you mean prosecuted in that they are charged with a crime then no, people are not prosecuted for private opinions.

If you that there are ramifications for the things we say and do then I suppose he is, but that seems a bit broad. This isn't something new either.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Are we now in a time and place where we have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private?

I believe we have been there for a while now. News stories of people being fired for postings they make on social media sites are not uncommon. While an argument can be made that social media postings are public postings, you could also argue that certain blogs (especially if identifying names and other markers are removed) and some "private" conversations with friends and family on social media sites could (should?) be considered private by their authors, and yet, when aired in public those "private" musings get people in trouble.

I think as a society we have largely moved away from expecting privacy in many of our private conversations, and we are continuing to blur the lines between what is public and private as technology advancements allow us to "share" so much of our lives.


I had heard on the radio last night that Sterling asked his girlfriend/assistant to make these recordings because he suffered from memory loss and liked to play back conversations for details he had missed. Has that been confirmed? Or was it just bs?

I could understand how posting on social media can lead to trouble since it can reflect badly on or defame an employer and the fact that such things, when posted can be accessed. It's being penalized for the private conversations that leave a bad taste for me.

Once it is made public it doesn't really matter, as [the NBA] can't ignore it, bad taste or not. Once you open Pandora's Box you can't pretend it was never opened, for right or wrong.

 Ahtman wrote:
If you mean prosecuted in that they are charged with a crime then no, people are not prosecuted for private opinions.

If you that there are ramifications for the things we say and do then I suppose he is, but that seems a bit broad. This isn't something new either.

Wrong wording on my part, perhaps. The man is being fined a couple million and having his team stripped from him along with a lifetime ban.
That's what I mean by being prosecuted. I think he had already set his course to losing his team without being penalized officially, but I can see that perhaps he put himself in position of violating a clause when his lil' prostitute recorded him and made it public.
Kind of like violating an HMO agreement.

Just trying to wrap my brain around the concept.

There are laws that allow him to sue if the recording was made and released illegally, especially if the intent was to harm him, but the NBA doesn't really have much choice but deal with what was done. Now that the racist genie is out of the bottle and in front of the world they have to respond in a way that protects the organization, not Sterling, and won't alienate huge swaths of their fan base and employees.

 Ahtman wrote:
There are laws that allow him to sue if the recording was made and released illegally, especially if the intent was to harm him, but the NBA doesn't really have much choice but deal with what was done. Now that the racist genie is out of the bottle and in front of the world they have to respond in a way that protects the organization, not Sterling, and won't alienate huge swaths of their fan base and employees.

The NBA is definitely put into a bad situation by this jerks ill chosen words. This pair seem like a fairly repellent couple that desrve each other.
(Man and woman, not man and NBA)

Clipper fanchrise is on its death spiral I believe now

Relapse wrote:


I could understand how posting on social media can lead to trouble since it can reflect badly on or defame an employer and the fact that such things, when posted can be accessed. It's being penalized for the private conversations that leave a bad taste for me.

That is the position blatant racists and bigots take when they still want to talk about their racist and bigoted opinions, but then want to hide those positions under 'other agendas' in public to still push their bigoted agendas but not be held accountable for it. If you feel the need to be a racist bigot 'in private' then you need to accept if your statements happen within earshot of someone who does not agree and has the inclination to do something about it. And guess what? You should be held accountable. There is no 'right' for 'off the record bigotry' which means penalty free hate speech because you claim it is 'private' especially since all of your actions in all aspects of your life then need to be further viewed under the microscope of your hate speech to protect people from discrimination.

There is no such thing as 'private'. If you say words to another person, there is no obligation or agreement that person won't simply say "hey, so-and-so said this... He is a giant bigot. HR should research to see if these views were possibly reflected on any of his hiring/firing practices within his job capacity." And your defense can't be "hey! that was private!" Because that is code for "I thought you were cool with my racism and therefor I thought I could talk like I assume all us whites do." This happens frequently where people assume all the white people in a room are somehow on the same page and instantly start dropping racist talk and I have to tell them it is not cool and I don't accept their behavior. And just because someone doesn't call you on your gak doesn't mean they support it and won't expose your behavior to others... in your organization, in the neighborhood, your work, wherever... They have every right to share your statements the second they fall out of your face onto other people's ears. Such questions are quite common for security clearances and private conversations of hate speech is something the government does deny security clearances on.

You want your bigoted attitudes to be 'private'? Inside your brain and never leaving your mouth is a good start.

He's been a piece of gak slum lord for a while. Stern should have addressed it back in 2006 when he was used by the federal govt for discrimination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is an expectation of privacy in some states. The recording was obtained illegally.

 cincydooley wrote:
He's been a piece of gak slum lord for a while. Stern should have addressed it back in 2006 when he was used by the federal govt for discrimination.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And there is an expectation of privacy in some states. The recording was obtained illegally.

For recordings... not content... There is nothing preventing someone from going to TMZ and saying 'So-and-so said this.' Not that it would have gained the same traction and the response from Sterling would have been 'I never said that!' but remember... if your only defense is to lie about what you said, that is shaky ground to be on, especially in a situation like this where someone might be willing to 'take the hit' on an illegal recording in order to 'out' a bigot.

Yeah. He's totally going to win any suit on the grounds of "I'm only racist when no one is listening"

 purplefood wrote:
I have to admit...
I did think this was about our currency.

Me too.

 Chongara wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
No, we don't have to be afraid of being prosecuted for opinions expressed in private.

We do have to be aware of what we say, however, if we are a member of a massively-profitable PRIVATE group which has clauses in its contracts specifying that the group can kick a member out if you do or say things that damage the group's public image or profitability.

But does that clause cover private speech? I could understand it if he was saying garbage like that in public and being in violation, but in his own home?

http://xkcd.com/1357/
Yes. He said it, they found out, they acted. Fair is Fair. Now if he wants to get aggressive over somebody recording him illegally, let him. That's an entirely different matter.

Everything about these answers is gold. They have to protect the players and the NBA not the constitution.

I don't think there should be any legal consequences for what he said. People can say what they like.

I'm not privy to whatever contracts he may have signed with the NBA that may, or may not say, that his private conduct could have issues if it makes the league look bad. If he did sign an agreement with a morals clause, it should be enforced.

I doubt he cares. He's old as gak and rich as hell. He could probably just randomly kill someone if he felt like it and essentially get away with it. I doubt I'd care about public perception too much at that age and in that status either.

California is a two-party notification state, so there was probably a violation of state wiretapping laws.

 Byte wrote:
Everything about these answers is gold. They have to protect the players and the NBA not the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't protect you fallout from violating private contracts or from public opinion. It just keeps the government from arresting him for what he said.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Everything about these answers is gold. They have to protect the players and the NBA not the constitution.

The Constitution doesn't protect you fallout from violating private contracts or from public opinion. It just keeps the government from arresting him for what he said.

Thank you for the reiteration? I thought I said that when combined with the context of the quotes.

 Orlanth wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
I have to admit...
I did think this was about our currency.

Me too.

I thought this had something to do with Archer.

Relapse wrote:
The man is being fined a couple million and having his team stripped from him along with a lifetime ban.

I don't think theyve yet made the decision to force the sale of his team as of yet, so he's not been stripped of the team. Yet.

I personally think that, if he didn't have the history he apparently does with saying/doing these sorts of things, the league would not be trying to pursue the forced sale of his team. However, there is precedent in professional sports for dealing harshly with "out of line" owners (such as Marge Schott, seen above, and not on the racial front, but George Steinbrenner).

This is the same gak as the duck dynasty guy.

You have the freedom of speech, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech and private employers/groups do have the freedom to censure you should you use your freedom of speech to speak something perceived to damage them by association.

This was not about what he said to his girlfriend, this was about what he said to his girlfriend which was then broadcast to the world.

There are consequences of a negative nature as a direct result of saying racist or otherwise denigrating, prejudiced or bigoted towards accepted groups, subcultures or minorities within society. Learn tolerance or learn to keep your mouth shut...