Donald Sterling Clippers owner alleged racist.

[700UW]

Where in COTUS does it say you cant be recorded?
 
The NBA isnt law enforcement and they have the right to discipline owners and players.

 

[MCI transplant]

Court of public opinion the man is guilty and sentenced.
 
Court of law, how was evidence obtained...........
 
This issue and what people are pushing and commenting on is frightening. This guy was in his home.
 
The issue should be the American that violated this mans rights.

Dell, is this just because of our age, or is it just us? I'm not trying to defend what the man said, but I am defending his right to say it in his own home! Can anyone tell me if he knew he was being recorded? Because if he didn't know, the recording is illegal! And has anyone bothered to find out who leaked it to the media? Last time I checked, this was a country based on law! And what law has he broken? Or has that been sacrafuced in the name of "political correctness"? It would seem everyone is in one big hurry to string this man up!-------- And let me repeat! I'm not trying to defend what he said, but only his right to say it!!!!

 

[700UW]

No one has said he couldnt say it.
 
He said it and now he is facing the ramifications of his words and actions, the NBA has the right to discipline him as they are in charge of the league and he is a franchisee.

 

[MCI transplant]

No one has said he couldnt say it.
 
He said it and now he is facing the ramifications of his words and actions, the NBA has the right to discipline him as they are in charge of the league and he is a franchisee.

You don't get it do you 700?------  There's a good probablity that what was said, was said in a private conversation, and illegally recorded! If that in fact is the case, it can not be admitted into court, and whoever leaked it to the media, can be sued for damages!!!! $$$$$$$! ----- Now, Mr. Sterling already said, his team is not up for sale. And I don't believe he's the type to just role over and take all this without a fight! And he does have the resorces to do just that! It could get intesting!

 

[700UW]

The NBA isnt a court, they have a constitution and Sterling violated it.

 

[MCI transplant]

The NBA isnt a court, they have a constitution and Sterling violated it.

Oh really? And how did he do that? ------- I tell you what 700, all we can do is set back and see how this all plays out! You obviously have your opinion, I have mine.

 

[700UW]

Are you that dense?

 

[MCI transplant]

Are you?

 

[eolesen]

Where in COTUS does it say you cant be recorded?

Try the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Further... California state law requires two-party consent for the recording of any conversation. Absent consent, it violates state law with regard to admissibility, and in court would be considered as serious an act as it would be to search someone's house without a warrant.

http://jacksonandwilson.com/donald-sterlings-clippers-wiretapping/
 

The NBA isnt a court, they have a constitution and Sterling violated it.

If Sterling violated it now, then he also violated it years ago, and was never censured. There was little if any outrage despite it being highly publicized, and even the NAACP saw fit to honor his achievements after his run-ins as a slum lord. Twice.


Remember how those who wanted sodomy laws overturned insisted at the time that what happens in the bedroom is nobody else's business, and shouldn't be used to punish them?

This is really no different. A private conversation took place between two adults where there should be a presumption of privacy. What's to stop someone's privately expressed views on gay marriage from being used to force them to give up ownership of another team?...

But back to 700's flawed assumption.

The NBA constitution is considered a contract between two parties - the league and the owner. When there's a dispute on a contract between two entities, you take it to a civil court.

In court, it absolutely will matter how the statements made by Sterling were obtained and made public. In his home or private office, he had an expectation of privacy, and the league does not have the ability to restrain him from engaging in a legal act in private, much less try to revoke his franchise or force a sale at below-market value.

It may be a moot point. There's rumor out that the sale of the team could go as high as $1B given that they're in LA (the Bucks sold for $536M, and LA has to have a higher valuation than a franchise in Milwaukee...). Personally, I'd take the money and run if it were that high.

 

[700UW]

The NBA is not a police agency nor a government agency.
 
They didnt record him, the tapes were made public by the media.
 
You all are not understanding the COTUS and the 14th is stopping the government from doing that, not a private entity.
 
Its not a criminal matter and the NBA isnt the police.

 

[MCI transplant]

The NBA has to abide by the Law of the Land as does anyone else. And if Mr. Sterling decides he has been in anyway harmed in this, he has the right to  address those grievances in Civil Court . That could include implicating the Commissioner of the NBA. ------ But, as "E" has stated, if it were me, I'd take the money and run also!!! But it's not about money to these people! It's about image!

 

[delldude]

Where in COTUS does it say you cant be recorded?
 
The NBA isnt law enforcement and they have the right to discipline owners and players.

 
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who—
(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;
  b intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when—
(i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or
(ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or
(iii) such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iv) such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or b, obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or
(v) such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;

(c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;
(d) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or
(e)
(i) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511 (2)(a)(ii), 2511 (2) b,–(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,
(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,
(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and
(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).

 

[Ms Tree]

I believe something is being overlooked here.  There are two separate issues.  The recording of the conversation and the results of publishing the conversation.  
 
As the law was explained to be by a prosecutor, law enforcement cannot just break the law and use what ever evidence they find against you.  They must follow the law.  How ever, if a third party records a conversation (as in this case) and publishes that information, law enforcement may use that information.  
 
None of this precludes a civil law suit by Sterling against the girl friend but the info is out there so far as I understand it, since the courts/officers did not violate any laws obtaining the info, it is admissible.  
 
There is also the issue of the NBA being able to preserve their 'reputation' as they see fit.  Since the info is out there and damage could be cause to the brand, it would seem that they have the right to protect their investment.  

 

[MCI transplant]

I believe something is being overlooked here.  There are two separate issues.  The recording of the conversation and the results of publishing the conversation.  
 
As the law was explained to be by a prosecutor, law enforcement cannot just break the law and use what ever evidence they find against you.  They must follow the law.  How ever, if a third party records a conversation (as in this case) and publishes that information, law enforcement may use that information.  
 
None of this precludes a civil law suit by Sterling against the girl friend but the info is out there so far as I understand it, since the courts/officers did not violate any laws obtaining the info, it is admissible.  
 
There is also the issue of the NBA being able to preserve their 'reputation' as they see fit.  Since the info is out there and damage could be cause to the brand, it would seem that they have the right to protect their investment.  

Sorry Tree! I disagree! ------- the Statement in fact is------ "if a third party " illegally" records a conversation (as in this case) law enforcement  may (not) use that information. Read:   http://jacksonandwil...rs-wiretapping  ---------- Also, even though we may not agree with what Mr.Sterling said, there is nothing illegal about any of it! 

 

[700UW]

You all seem to faill too realize the NBA is not a police agency, they didn't tape him. It's a civil matter, not criminal.
 
You are all not getting the concept, the NBA Is not a police agency, nor was he charged with a crime by the NBA, they didnt tape him, it was released to the public and they reacted.
 
He has signed an agreement to abide by the NBA rules, constitution and bylaws, he violated it and now has to pay the price.