Doc to Leave if Sterling Stays?

Outside wrote:

beat wrote:We can almost all agree DS is no saint BUT for the league to strip him of the team or force a sale over a few uneducated words said in private is questionable for sure and unlike Outside to say that privacy has no bearing to me is still up in the air. I think ALL aspects of this are in play till they are not.

I absolutely agree that all aspects, including privacy, are in play. The purpose of my post was to describe various legal aspects of the situation and my understanding of the validity of various arguments regarding those issues.

Regarding privacy issues, my point is that the league can argue that it is irrelevant because they're not claiming that his private comments are responsible for the harm done to the league, but instead that reaction by sponsors, players, and others in response to Sterling's continued status as an owner is what is doing harm.

"Alas there is the rub"

Irrelevant...????.....tough to decide for sure. If evidence is begotten by illegal means yet proves the crime happened and the perp did it, regardless, the court (in criminal cases), must throw it out.

This is not a criminal matter. Yet if the league is basing their actions on a "private" conversation recorded in the sanctity of ones own home raises the question in my mind can it be used to further the league action of complete banishment and forced sale of the team.

Silver's actions directly followed release of this tape yet other earlier actions and behaviors of DS noted by several others prompted nothing in regards to discipline from Stern, or Silver. It sure does appear that this tape and its conversation is indeed the lynchpin of the leagues actions.

No doubt that those comments can be and are harmful to the league BUT when said in the privacy of one's home??? Just not sure where this line of right/wrong, legal/illegal can be drawn on this one. We all know what he said is "wrong" but it is certainly not illegal to say it.

I truly do not know how this will all turn out. Just sort of wish we could focus on basketball ON the court........ and not in the "court".

beat

beat wrote:Irrelevant...????.....tough to decide for sure. If evidence is begotten by illegal means yet proves the crime happened and the perp did it, regardless, the court (in criminal cases), must throw it out.

This is not a criminal matter. Yet if the league is basing their actions on a "private" conversation recorded in the sanctity of ones own home raises the question in my mind can it be used to further the league action of complete banishment and forced sale of the team.

Again, my point is that the league is NOT basing their actions on the conversation itself but instead on harm done by sponsors, players, and others in response to Sterling's continued ownership of the team.

Even though you acknowledge that it's a civil, not criminal, matter, it still seems to me that your first impulse is to think of it in terms of criminal law, which is of course natural considering your profession is on that side of the law.

Even though Silver may have appeared to respond to the nature of the comments only, prior to his action against Sterling, players told him they would boycott upcoming playoff games if the league didn't take strong action against Sterling. The league's strongest argument is the harm and potential harm from player boycotts, sponsors pulling their support, and reduced attendance and viewership (not just with the Clippers but league-wide) if Sterling were allowed to remain as owner. That is primarily what forced the league to act, not the comments themselves.

Due to the nature of the NBA constitution and the franchisor/franchisee relationship, the league likely could have pursued action against Sterling solely based on his comments, much as MLB did against Marge Schott for her comments supporting Hitler (she said Hitler "was O.K. at the beginning. He rebuilt all the roads, honey. You know that, right? He just went too far.") MLB was legally allowed to take action against her because of those comments, regardless of her First Amendment rights to free speech. The Sterling case is different because of the privacy issue, but once the comments became public (and because apparently no one associated with the league is responsible for them becoming public), the comments are public and the NBA is free to exercise its rights as a franchisor to protect itself from harm caused by the comments.

If a person is recorded in private making racist comments and that recording then is made public, that person's employer would have the right to fire that person. If that person were a franchise owner, the franchisor would have a legal right to force the person to sell the franchise. The fact that the person's privacy rights may have been violated doesn't matter because the public airing of the comments, however it occurred, does harm to the employer or franchisor.

Sterling's lawyers can of course make the argument that the violation of privacy does matter and that any penalties against him are not justified as a result. My understanding from what I've read is that the league's argument is valid and Sterling's argument isn't, but that's what all the court cases will decide.

Beat,

As Outside alluded to, there is no blanket of protection for the 1st Amendment in the workplace.

It does not matter how the tapes were obtained. Maybe if Sterling was facing actual charges they would matter, but that is not the case here. Sterling's case doesn't have a leg to stand on because it's not really a situation of federal legality.

And even if by some chance Sterling did win, Silver would likely be willing to void the contracts of all Clippers personnel, allowing them to sign with other organizations. The Clippers would go down the toilet in that instance. Both situations render Donald Sterling powerless. It's inevitable, regardless of how things proceed.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Beat,

As Outside alluded to, there is no blanket of protection for the 1st Amendment in the workplace.

It does not matter how the tapes were obtained. Maybe if Sterling was facing actual charges they would matter, but that is not the case here. Sterling's case doesn't have a leg to stand on because it's not really a situation of federal legality.

And even if by some chance Sterling did win, Silver would likely be willing to void the contracts of all Clippers personnel, allowing them to sign with other organizations. The Clippers would go down the toilet in that instance. Both situations render Donald Sterling powerless. It's inevitable, regardless of how things proceed.



KJ

Are you an attorney? A judge(s) will make a ruling not you or me. NO one knows what can happen in the court.....civil or other wise to presume so is foolish.

beat

Fortunately, this case has nothing to do with the Celtics.  My guess is that, if the Celts were about to play Game 7 in the Finals, none of us would even know how to spell Sturleeng's name.

Of course, I just looked in the newspaper, and, they're not about to play Game 7.

Sam

beat wrote:
Are you an attorney?  A judge(s) will make a ruling not you or me. NO one knows what can happen in the court.....civil or other wise to presume so is foolish.

beat

Beat,

I understand the 1st amendment well enough to know what it protects and does not protect in varying situations.

What's more important are the rules of the NBA itself. The bylaws, specifically. Rhetorically speaking, do they state what instances can cause an owner to lose their team? Are the owners bound by the limitations the league sets? Did they sign an agreement to adhere to all NBA regulations? Who is steering the ship? The owners or the commissioner?

It obviously has to be Silver, because if he didn't have supreme authority, even over owners, his position of power would be under false pretenses.

You didn't address the other part of my post, the one where I gave the other possible scenario.

What happens in the court doesn't necessarily *matter.* Why? Because in the end, he is going to lose power regardless. He can either shut his trap, take his $2B or whatever his slice of the pie is, or watch as his franchise crumbles beneath the weight of both his ignorance and the likelihood that sponsors, fans, and personnel depart.



KJ

Sam,

You need an iPad or some other confusing electronic device in your life. No one reads or gets the newspaper anymore!! (JK)

db