Donald Sterling racial slurs

[Phishfan]

suspended from what?  Owning the team?  A suspension for an owner is laughable.

Suspended from operations (and likely attending games or visiting the offices). Granted some owners could be completely hands off but these guys do make business decisions for their organizations. Who hires the front office personnel? Team owners.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

The privacy of these comments is irrelevant; "I didn't want the public to know what I think!" is not any sort of excuse.

  Or maybe an advertisement saying .....

The privacy is relevant. 

A parent who tells his/her own children if they marry someone of a different race then they will be written out of the will, is quite a bit different than someone who want to amend the constitution to reverse Loving v. Texas.

Also their is difference between a person telling their own child or spouse not to hang out with "the wrong crowd" and discriminating against them in the work place. 

I am willing to bet in almost every household comments have been made at the dinner table in private that would be considered racist/sexist/etc and illegal if made in a workplace.

[Brian Fein]

Private comments made in public places are public comments.  If you don't want to be overheard, speak in PRIVATE.

A mother speaking to her child AT HOME is very different than the same conversation happening in a crowded restaurant.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Private comments made in public places are public comments.  If you don't want to be overheard, speak in PRIVATE.

A mother speaking to her child AT HOME is very different than the same conversation happening in a crowded restaurant.

He wasn't overheard, he was recorded by the person he was speaking to. 

What do you think the odds are Al Sharpton et. al. having made equally racist comments about "whitey?"

[pondwater]

Everyone also is entitled to have their opinion about his opinion. See how that works? It is hypocritical to think that one person is allowed an opinion without others being able to speak up. We've covered this before so I don't know why you stick to this. Yes, he can feel how he wants but he has to expect for there to be a reaction.

Why do we have to expect a reaction? Apparently everyone already knew he was a racist from prior incidents. So why is this a surprise? Shouldn't the reaction already have happened? We all know that racists exist, some advertise it and some hide it. But they still exist, and nothing is ever, ever, ever going to change it. So therefore, why should we expect a reaction? And the even better question is what is that reaction going to accomplish?

The privacy of these comments is irrelevant; "I didn't want the public to know what I think!" is not any sort of excuse.

Of course it's relevant. It was a private conversation. Where did the conversation take place? If it took place in LA, then the person recording the conversation would need his consent since California is a Two Party state.

 When must you get permission from everyone involved before recording?

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. 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.

The recordings seem to be illegal to begin with. Furthermore, since it is only audio and not video, you have to prove that the voice on the recordings is actually his and that they haven't been doctored or altered.

[pondwater]

Private comments made in public places are public comments.  If you don't want to be overheard, speak in PRIVATE.

A mother speaking to her child AT HOME is very different than the same conversation happening in a crowded restaurant.

He wasn't overheard by a person in a public place. He was recorded in a private conversation, which is illegal in the state of California. He should press charges and sue the individual for damages. If he didn't explicitly give consent then he should win. This is nothing but another leftist witch hunt.

[Spider-Dan]

The privacy is relevant. 

A parent who tells his/her own children if they marry someone of a different race then they will be written out of the will, is quite a bit different than someone who want to amend the constitution to reverse Loving v. Texas.

You're making a circular argument; the only way the will-exclusion would be "more acceptable" is if it wasn't publicly known.

To be more specific: any ridiculously racist position is "perfectly fine" when kept private, precisely because the public is unaware of it.  How can you possibly have a public backlash for something that the public doesn't know about?

Furthermore: this exact scenario is PRECISELY AN EXAMPLE of a private citizen telling his girlfriend that he doesn't approve of her publicly fraternizing with blacks, and you can see the blowback.  How could it possibly have been increased if he took out an ad?

I would also like you to explain why it would be wrong to take Sterling's team for being a racist (but only in private), but OK to take his team if he's open about it and took out an ad stating as such.  He's still a racist in both scenarios; is he allowed to have his own beliefs, or not?

Also their is difference between a person telling their own child or spouse not to hang out with "the wrong crowd" and discriminating against them in the work place.

If "the wrong crowd" is defined as "the wrong race," and you are an employer, it is impossible to believe that you would not discriminate against people of that race in your workplace.  Sterling's business history certainly confirms this suspicion.

I am willing to bet in almost every household comments have been made at the dinner table in private that would be considered racist/sexist/etc and illegal if made in a workplace.

I am willing to bet that millions of people have cheated on their significant others.  That doesn't change the fact that there are repercussions when you get caught.

[CF DolFan]

He's a piece of crap but I was curious about the recordings as well. Seems to me she will face some sort of liable lawsuit or something but it really has no bearing on public opinion. In the eyes of the public this guy is public enemy number one to the NBA and detrimental to the league. they have no choice but to get rid of him any way they can.

The best thing Sterling can do is say "yes I am a racist, I am sorry for those I hurt, and have entered program X to overcome my bigotry. I am donating 1 billion dollars to the African charity of   x to further the education and health of black america." outside of that he is screwed in the NBA world as much as Zimmerman.

[Spider-Dan]

Of course it's relevant. It was a private conversation. Where did the conversation take place? If it took place in LA, then the person recording the conversation would need his consent since California is a Two Party state.

I have made no statement as to the legality of the recordings or Sterling's avenues for redressing any civil tort he may have suffered.  I do, however, find it incredibly convenient that you seem to be against the idea of leaked communications, and that we should completely ignore the content of any illicitly-gained communication.  Can I presume that your strict code of morality also applies to communications that are more convenient to your political worldview?

[Phishfan]

Why do we have to expect a reaction? Apparently everyone already knew he was a racist from prior incidents. So why is this a surprise? Shouldn't the reaction already have happened? We all know that racists exist, some advertise it and some hide it. But they still exist, and nothing is ever, ever, ever going to change it. So therefore, why should we expect a reaction? And the even better question is what is that reaction going to accomplish?

Actually, I had no idea about this guys history and I bet most people didn't either.

So basically, we shouldn't expect a reaction from you but yet you have one. Isn't it pointless to respond to this thread? What are you going to accomplish by doing so?

What an easy game to play.

[Phishfan]

This is nothing but another leftist witch hunt.

So, only liberals are against his position? Man you should have watch O'Reilly and several other Fox shows last night. Racism is not a liberal or conservative position ( except maybe for Tea Partiers).

[Dave Gray]

Seems to me she will face some sort of liable lawsuit or something but it really has no bearing on public opinion.

There is nothing libelous.  She isn't saying things about him.  He's saying them about himself.  And for it to be libel, it needs to be 1) written, 2) damaging, and 3) false.

[CF DolFan]

There is nothing libelous.  She isn't saying things about him.  He's saying them about himself.  And for it to be libel, it needs to be 1) written, 2) damaging, and 3) false.

It's illegally recorded and then released to the public to purposely discredit him. Is that not liable?

One cannot "lead" a witness. Without knowing the full context of the conversation I'd still bet she set set him up in more ways than one.

Don't get me wrong he is a dirt bag but I think she has some dirty hands.

[Dave Gray]

It's illegally recorded and then released to the public to purposely discredit him. Is that not liable?

No.  It is not libel. 

Libel has to be written by someone else, damaging, and false.

[AZ Fins Fan 55]

I too am wondering about the legality of the recordings. The guy is a grade A asshat no doubt about it and sure he deserves every bit of the punishment being handed down. I am now wondering if the precedence set forth in this case will be the norm gong forward. We are all guilty in one way or another of having a private, less than 10 minute, conversation with someone that if recorded could land us in hot water (and no not just specific to racism). So I wonder if for example Lebron says something about hating whites or that women are not equals or whatever, which gets recorded and published. Does Silver now have to impose a lifetime ban on Lebron? Plenty of players have made homophobic remarks in the past so are those players looking at lifetime bans going forward because it is a black eye for the league? Just food for thought!!!!!