NBA Thread

[GM Franchise]

This is the NBA. He can sue the crap out of her for recording those comments but he doesn't have much of a leg to stand in when violating the NBA's code of conduct.  The owners are well within their right to remove him when the time comes according to the CBA both players and owners agreed upon.

He'll lose ownership because of this but I also think he'll win a case against her in court of he goes that route  because of the recordings being done without his knowledge or consent.

[The TeeJ of Philly]

He'll lose ownership because of this but I also think he'll win a case against her in court of he goes that route  because of the recordings being done without his knowledge or consent.

Further proof you don't read comments prior to starting yours. Pancho already posted not only federal law but California state law how he's knowledge or consent was not needed.

[Mike Powers]

Further proof you don't read comments prior to starting yours. Pancho already posted not only federal law but California state law how he's knowledge or consent was not needed.

According to what Pancho posted, Federal law makes the recordings legal, but California requires both parties to consent.

[GM Franchise]

Further proof you don't read comments prior to starting yours. Pancho already posted not only federal law but California state law how he's knowledge or consent was not needed.

Lol, I didn't read it? Eff off with that noise. This is what it says.

Eleven states require the consent of every party to a phone call or conversation in order to make the recording lawful. These "two-party consent" laws have been adopted in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (Note: (1) Illinois' two-party consent statute was held unconstitutional in 2014; (2) Hawai'i is in general a one-party state, but requires two-party consent if the recording device is installed in a private place). Although they are referred to as "two-party consent" laws, consent must be obtained from every party to a phone call or conversation if it involves more than two people. In some of these states, it might be enough if all parties to the call or conversation know that you are recording and proceed with the communication anyway, even if they do not voice explicit consent. See the State Law: Recording section of this legal guide for information on specific states' wiretapping laws.

That reads to me like it means both parties must consent which in this case clearly didn't happen.

According to what Pancho posted, Federal law makes the recordings legal, but California requires both parties to consent.

Ninja'd

[The TeeJ of Philly]

well then I need to find a reason you post the exact same thing people post before you do

On topic, The other thing is that if he sues based on poor reasoning for his bannishment and forced sale, it's not a amendment thing, it's antitrust, which if they throw out the conversation, there's more proof of his racism, which is know even more in the know than it was before.

[Hondo]

First let me say that I in no way defend Sterling for his beliefs and statements. They're ancient, reprehensible and vile.

That said.....this is America. The country that says having an organization like the KKK is okay, due to freedom of speech/expression/religion. Being racist is disgusting, but not a crime. Recording a private conversation, without a warrant or consent, isn't admissible in court in California (and may be illegal, although I'm not sure; it is illegal in some states).

This ruling, in my opinion, sets a dangerous precedent to private businesses nationwide.

Mikey brings up a few good points.

Yes, it's unacceptable to make broad generalizations on a race of people. You can't just not like black people because they're black (or any race or creed for that matter). We aren't a society of mouth-breathers, we are a semi-sophisticated people, and blind hatred is just wrong. It's reprehensible in every way and warrants no place in normal society, let alone in a professional business setting.

Thing is, there is no law outlawing personal opinion. However effed up that opinion is, it's still his right to have it. Yes, the NBA is a private entity and can do what it sees fit with its ownership, players, etc. But this is kind of a dangerous precedent. Today you ban Sterling, ok. But what happens if other owners or people associated with the league take stands on hot-button issues? What happens when (all just hypotheticals) Mark Cuban takes a stand supporting late-term abortions? Or Kobe Bryant defends terrorism in the Middle East? Or if Larry Bird opposes gay marriage? Do these guys get banned too?

Look, all I'm saying is, we could be opening the door to a very slippery slope here. I don't disagree with Sterling's punishment per se (as noted by others, he was a real POS to begin with), I just worry about what it will lead to in the future.

[¿PapaPancho?]

Mikey brings up a few good points.

Yes, it's unacceptable to make broad generalizations on a race of people. You can't just not like black people because they're black (or any race or creed for that matter). We aren't a society of mouth-breathers, we are a semi-sophisticated people, and blind hatred is just wrong. It's reprehensible in every way and warrants no place in normal society, let alone in a professional business setting.

Thing is, there is no law outlawing personal opinion. However effed up that opinion is, it's still his right to have it. Yes, the NBA is a private entity and can do what it sees fit with its ownership, players, etc. But this is kind of a dangerous precedent. Today you ban Sterling, ok. But what happens if other owners or people associated with the league take stands on hot-button issues? What happens when (all just hypotheticals) Mark Cuban takes a stand supporting late-term abortions? Or Kobe Bryant defends terrorism in the Middle East? Or if Larry Bird opposes gay marriage? Do these guys get banned too?

Look, all I'm saying is, we could be opening the door to a very slippery slope here. I don't disagree with Sterling's punishment per se (as noted by others, he was a real POS to begin with), I just worry about what it will lead to in the future.

They will all be tried in the court of public opinion.  Welcome to leading a public life.

[J-Reb]

The abortion debate doesn't compute here. It doesn't effect 75% of the league. In terms of morality, racism was the worst possible thing that could have happened here.

[Hondo]

Forget the examples. They were just that: examples.

What I'm saying is, Have they set a precedent now to where if someone has an unpopular opinion, can they just ban them from the game? And I think they may have.

[The TeeJ of Philly]

He didn't get fired because he's racist. he didn't get fired because he's a piece of shit.

He got fired because he's a racist that represents the NBA. He got fired because he's a piece of shit that has a ton of say in the matters of the league, which made up mainly by the target of his racism.

When he bought a team he agreed to follow by-laws created by the NBA, by-laws that have evolved as the NBA has, by-laws he's agreed to.

There are things that are expected him as an owner, the same way things are expected as business owners, workers, and the like. The NBA has the right, as long as 3/4th majority of the owners vote in favor, to remove him from their club. Just like they have the right to punish a player for conduct. It's not a slippy slope.

We're also forgetting that there is more than this one time he has been accused of racism, the problem with this one time, it brought light to the others so now it's not a one time thing. If Cuban were to stand against long term abortion or those other examples, would be the first time and no doubt the owner would come out immediately to apologize.

NINJA: Edit, No hondo there's examples that are relevant and there are yours. If Sterling came out against abortion he wouldn't have been fined or banned. You know why, it wouldn't have been a 1024 on the Public Richter scale.

[J-Reb]

Forget the examples. They were just that: examples.

What I'm saying is, Have they set a precedent now to where if someone has an unpopular opinion, can they just ban them from the game? And I think they may have.

It's an example but is a major hole in the argument. You can't stand out as a CEO of a company, publicly or privately, and basically call your employees less human than the others. You wouldn't maintain your position in any circumstance when you degrade the majority of your workforce.

It's completely different than speaking out against a political opinion and such.

Two completely different arguments.

[¿PapaPancho?]

Forget the examples. They were just that: examples.

What I'm saying is, Have they set a precedent now to where if someone has an unpopular opinion, can they just ban them from the game? And I think they may have.

Having the freedom to have an opinion or unpopular viewpoint does not equal being free from the consequences of having that opinion.  Sponsors were pulling out; the free market had decided that Donald Sterling was not something worth investing in.  Public opinion had crucified him.  This wasn't the unilateral decision of one man or one organization.  Companies and People rose up to speak out against him.  This was a very unique situation.

[Justin]

The Thunder just dont get it. Westbrook should not be shooting 31 times in a game.

[Ian "Wolfie" Trumps]

I caught the Bulls elimination game last night and can I just say Charles Barkley comes across like a fucking idiot when it comes to sensitive topics like this. The problem when you have a race issue like this is that as a white male you are made to feel that you are also part of the problem because someone of the same gender and race is a racist. Its that same thing where if I dont give a fuck about this...which frankly I dont really...I am potentially branded as a racist/bigot or if I do give a fuck about this I am told 'well I couldnt possibly truly understand because I am not a minority'...

Racism can effect people in a variety of ways, you dont have to just be black or a minority to feel the implications of what has happened here, but the way Barkley came across during half time it could only possibly be minorities who feel effected by this. That pisses me off, not that I actually give a shit about Sterling and what he said, but the fact that people like Barkley don't help this cause by making it an 'us and them' thing.

When I was growing up, Isiah Thomas agreed with a statement by Dennis Rodman which implied about Larry Bird would be just another good guy if he was black. Why are we not sitting here questioning whethe Isiah Thomas or Dennis Rodman should be banned from the league? To me thats an offence remark to Larry Bird based on his race.

People have heard the tapes of a rich old white man who is what 80 years old? We have no idea of the context, the legitimacy of the tapes and a whole host of other factors and yet the world has handed out their sentence straight off the bat.

Sorry, I will be in the minority here (pardon the pun) but I think this is a complete load of bollocks.

[The TeeJ of Philly]

The man admitted to the commissioner that it was him. That pretty much throws any doubt out the window.

And yes what rodman said about bird is racist but 1) it was said over 20 year ago and 2) there's "no such thing as racism against whites" in the eyes of the media otherwise Larry Johnson would be crucified for his reaction to Sterling. Racism against whites doesn't bring eyes and ears like racism against minorities and it never will because there is no such thing as black or brown guilt to be taken advantage of.