- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Sterling is preparing to sue the NBA
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:28 pm to Buckeye Backer
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:28 pm to Buckeye Backer
quote:
Here is my question. In the state of California, illegally taping a private conversation is against the law.
quote:
California may not allow this tape to be [admissible] in court on
Not sure about California law on this subject, but in other states, illegally obtained evidence is admissible in a civil trial. In a criminal case, evidence cannot be used if it is obtained in violation of the law of the jurisdiction in with the prosecution is pending. Thus, if a state police officer arrests a person outside his jurisdiction, that arrest may be illegal under state law, but evidence seized in the illegal search may be admissible in a federal prosecution if there is no federal law making the arrest illegal.
This is known in federal law as the silver platter doctrine.
Important to this case, if the suit is filed in New York or in federal court, then it may not matter what California law is on the subject.
1
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:29 pm to Buckeye Backer
quote:
He is an attorney! This is what Sterling does. He wouldnt sue unless he thinks he has a case.
I'm not saying whether or not I think he will win. But just because he is doing this doesn't necessarily mean he thinks he has a case. If he doesn't have a case, he may know that, but he knows he can drag this on for a while and make it messy for everyone involved.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:32 pm to Na Mean
This whole thing makes me sick.
Are we in Nazi Germany? Can this guy not have an opinion, regardless whether others view it as being racist?
He didn't go on Sportscenter and denounce all blacks. He was giving an opinion while unknowingly being recorded.
Here's a hypothetical....
Tom Benson lives in an upscale neighborhood. He and his neighbor notice that a black family is moving in across the street. The neighbor comments on how upset he is about it and asks Tom Benson his thoughts. Benson says "I'm not crazy about that either". The neighbor is secretly recording him. Neighbor then attempts to extort him. Benson refuses and the neighbor gives audio to the media. The NFL forces Benson to sell the team and fines him millions....
Crazy.
What happens when an owner calls someone a "homo" as a joke or something? Does he lose his team as well?
What if instead of a black friend, this sociopathic girlfriend of the clippers owner was bringing a 7' tall transgender to the games and he asked her not to? Would the outcome be the same? (that is a serious question).
Are we in Nazi Germany? Can this guy not have an opinion, regardless whether others view it as being racist?
He didn't go on Sportscenter and denounce all blacks. He was giving an opinion while unknowingly being recorded.
Here's a hypothetical....
Tom Benson lives in an upscale neighborhood. He and his neighbor notice that a black family is moving in across the street. The neighbor comments on how upset he is about it and asks Tom Benson his thoughts. Benson says "I'm not crazy about that either". The neighbor is secretly recording him. Neighbor then attempts to extort him. Benson refuses and the neighbor gives audio to the media. The NFL forces Benson to sell the team and fines him millions....
Crazy.
What happens when an owner calls someone a "homo" as a joke or something? Does he lose his team as well?
What if instead of a black friend, this sociopathic girlfriend of the clippers owner was bringing a 7' tall transgender to the games and he asked her not to? Would the outcome be the same? (that is a serious question).
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:33 pm to wrlakers
quote:
California may not allow this tape to be [admissible] in court on
They go straight to arbitration.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:33 pm to Chair
i don't think he's trying to make it messy. I think he's trying to protect his business assets. Being forced to sell will fetch him a lower price than he may normally get. This team/money will play a big part in the assets he leaves his family when he passes on. I doubt he wants someone else hammering out those terms.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:34 pm to jg8623
quote:
He doesn't have the right to own a team that plays in the NBA. That's a privelage and the NBA has the right to operate as a private company and handle their issues as they choose
Well, actually he does. The NBA is 30 separate individually owned businesses who have agreed to bargain with one another and abide by a universal set of bylaws. That's the reason why the "NBA" (and the commissioner) cannot force Sterling to sell the team. The fellow business owners are the only ones who can do so pursuant to bylaws they've all agreed to follow.
There has been 50 discussions a day about this topic, but I think the commissioner's decision is extremely short-sighted and will have horrible effects across not just the NBA, but all sports. I certainly do not agree with Sterling's views, but at the end of the day the commissioner (through the force of public pressure) is forcing the owners to make someone sell their business for an opinion that was stated in the privacy of his home and secretly taped without his knowledge or consent.
The precedent has been set which is that the verbalizing of any views which may be offensive to some or any segment of the population must result in a lifetime ban and forced sale of your business. The problem is that what is or isn't considered "offensive" is extremely ambiguous. For example, is a team owner going to be banned for life because his opposes gay marriage? These "gotcha" tapes and soundbites very often come out without context. If an owner is taped at his home jokingly making an offensive comment about women, is he now going to be banned for life? The NBA precedent says he has to, doesn't it? If not, then the commissioner has forced himself to essentially judge and determine various "levels" of discrimination.
Is white on black discrimination "worse" than black on white discrimination?
Is discrimination on the basis of race "worse" than discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?
If the punishment for any and all discrimination (owner or player) isn't equally handed out, then you have now created a hirearchy of discrimination. Guys like Mark Cuban saw this slippery slope comming before the ultimate penalty was handed down. He's going to publically back Adam Silver, but he (and every other owner of every other sports team) is smart enough to know that this opens a giant can of worms that cannot be closed.
Think about the Riley Cooper incident last summer. If that would have happened this summer, the only "acceptable" punishment would have been a lifetime ban from the NFL and a substantial fine. What about when Kobe called a ref a "fa__ot"? Would he not have to be banned for life if that happens today? I don't think either guy should have been banned for life because of those actions, but this decision now brings that type of discussion into play for essentially every instance where offensive language is used.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:35 pm to blueboxer1119
quote:
Are we in Nazi Germany? Can this guy not have an opinion, regardless whether others view it as being racist?
He didn't go on Sportscenter and denounce all blacks. He was giving an opinion while unknowingly being recorded.
He can do whatever he wants. He will not be arrested nor face any criminal charges for this. People keep acting like he's being charged for a crime
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:36 pm to jg8623
quote:
They go straight to arbitration.
I didn't see an arbitration provision in the constitution. Is there one and I missed it?
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:38 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Let's be honest... clear thinking individuals want him to win. This precedent is horrible.
Fixed.
The Clippers are his personal property. How can they legally force him to sell? Ridiculous.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:39 pm to Alt26
quote:
Think about the Riley Cooper incident last summer. If that would have happened this summer, the only "acceptable" punishment would have been a lifetime ban from the NFL and a substantial fine. What about when Kobe called a ref a "fa__ot"? Would he not have to be banned for life if that happens today? I don't think either guy should have been banned for life because of those actions, but this decision now brings that type of discussion into play for essentially every instance where offensive language is used.
I am not sure this has been pointed out, but Sterling has not been accused of name calling, which is what is described in this paragraph. I am pretty sure that name calling is not aspirational behavior, but that's different than what happened here.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:40 pm to Alt26
The NBA has been trying to get rid of Sterling for years. He was a shitty, cheap owner and a world-class a-hole. This tape being blasted all over the country during the middle of a great playoff run gave them the ammo to dump him. Apparently, there are hours of these tapes that gold-digging whore made at Sterling's behalf -- he wanted stuff taped because his memory is shot. God knows what sort of things are on those other tapes.
They're not going to go after Mark Cuban for having a big mouth, or James Dolan for being a prick or Rich DeVos for opposing gay marriage. Sterling is a special case. None of those guys create constant p.r. nightmares for the league -- Dolan is a shitty owner in the normal shitty owner sort of ways.
They're not going to go after Mark Cuban for having a big mouth, or James Dolan for being a prick or Rich DeVos for opposing gay marriage. Sterling is a special case. None of those guys create constant p.r. nightmares for the league -- Dolan is a shitty owner in the normal shitty owner sort of ways.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:41 pm to timbo
quote:
The NBA has been trying to get rid of Sterling for years
Not really
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:42 pm to wrlakers
quote:
didn't see an arbitration provision in the constitution. Is there one and I missed it?
That's what the people on tv have said
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:42 pm to wrlakers
quote:
I am not sure this has been pointed out, but Sterling has not been accused of name calling, which is what is described in this paragraph. I am pretty sure that name calling is not aspirational behavior, but that's different than what happened here.
I agree to an extent. But if name-calling vs non name-calling is the standard, then you would have players getting fined for life and kicked out of the league on a weekly basis. The amount of vulgarity and name calling that takes place on the court or field every game is extensive.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:44 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
The Clippers are his personal property. How can they legally force him to sell? Ridiculous.
Im sure he could continue owning the clippers but they won't be allowed to play in the NBA
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:47 pm to Alt26
quote:
But if name-calling vs non name-calling is the standard
It's not the standard and it's not the issue. I am pretty sure that name calling has been dealt with appropriately, and that no one is getting banned for life for name calling.
I am trying to say that you cannot compare name calling with what has occurred in this case.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:51 pm to jg8623
quote:
can do whatever he wants. He will not be arrested nor face any criminal charges for this. People keep acting like he's being charged for a crime
You can be against censorship and having personal conversations illegally cost you a business even if it doesn't go under 1st amendment.
We no longer have to worry about govt or big brother in our lives. We are our own worst enemies and will tattle on each other and do worse than govt ever could. So while 1st amendment is cool and all because we think we have a right not to be offended we have no freedom of speech. we have to surpress any thought that could hurt feelings. When 1st amendment was written they never thought its citizens would be worse than the govt when suppressing speech.
So hide behind technicality when keep using the same old tired"he's not being charged" line...but know that you babies have killed thought and free thinking. Enjoy us all having same thoughts and eventually we will only nod to each other so not to offend
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:53 pm to wrlakers
The name calling wasn't the issue...people use that word all the time...cooper used it and Kobe called that ref a ****. Names aren't the problem. The problem is that sterling basically labeled blacks and other minorities as sub human saying they owe everything they have to him...that their talent is inconsequential because the good white man has decided to bestow upon them his kindness and wealth and allow them to have these things.
Posted on 5/1/14 at 1:56 pm to fightingtiger2335
quote:
So hide behind technicality when keep using the same old tired"he's not being charged" line...but know that you babies have killed thought and free thinking. Enjoy us all having same thoughts and eventually we will only nod to each other so not to offend
When did I say I agreed with how all this works?
Posted on 5/1/14 at 2:07 pm to Buckeye Backer
quote:
but unless they have a written agreement, he can claim he didnt give her the right and now its "he said she said". If that's indeed the law, this audio tape would then be a crime.
If it's "he said she said" how does that make it a crime?
That's a genuine dispute of facts that could possible be illegal or legal but no conclusive evidence either way in "he said she said"
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News