Donald Sterling

[Thrill]

That's generally the law in every state (unless it's a public place, with no presumption of privacy, and you're voluntarily there). He obviously has a very strong civil case. And his lawyers likely have already begun the process.

Most states have one-party consent, to my knowledge. I believe that one-party consent is designed to be helpful in police situations (i.e. you can legally record an officer to prove improper Due Process).

Maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't think people should be punished for their personal opinions - regardless of how offensive - unless they're actually hurting someone/something financially/physically. It's like with that Duck Dynasty fiasco. I don't agree with his beliefs, but he didn't physically harm anyone cause any problem beyond having a differing opinion, so why should he be chastised for that? Not everyone agrees with the majority, and while homophobia and racism aren't widely acceptable, they do exist, and I won't say anything negative against someone who keeps those negative opinions from harming others and lets them thrive only in their personal lives.

The issue is that the NBA is a business. Naturally, they do not want to be seen condoning this kind of attitude. Their players don't like it, their fans don't like it, and even other owners don't like it.

Just as Sterling has the right to state his racist beliefs, the NBA has the right to disassociate itself from people with those beliefs.

 

[kalyee]

Most states have one-party consent, to my knowledge. I believe that one-party consent is designed to be helpful in police situations (i.e. you can legally record an officer to prove improper Due Process).







The issue is that the NBA is a business. Naturally, they do not want to be seen condoning this kind of attitude. Their players don't like it, their fans don't like it, and even other owners don't like it.



Just as Sterling has the right to state his racist beliefs, the NBA has the right to disassociate itself from people with those beliefs.

I don't feel like the private conversation should've been made public in the first place.
But yes, I get that. I just don't feel it's worth ruining someone's life over.

 

[Fiyero]

I don't feel like the private conversation should've been made public in the first place.
But yes, I get that. I just don't feel it's worth ruining someone's life over.

Sterling is a billionaire. This is far from ruining his life

 

[allison]

I don't agree with the nba's decision, but I guess they can do whatever they want at this point. Joke is on the NBA though, because Sterling is laughing all the way to the bank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kalyee]

Sterling is a billionaire. This is far from ruining his life

Not money wise, but reputation wise.

 

[Whispered]

Most states have one-party consent, to my knowledge. I believe that one-party consent is designed to be helpful in police situations (i.e. you can legally record an officer to prove improper Due Process).

Is the two-party consent different from "consent from those being recorded"? btw, police is a whole-nother ballpark, states have laws specifically allowing that if i'm not mistaken.

 

[Thrill]

I don't agree with the nba's decision, but I guess they can do whatever they want at this point. Joke is on the NBA though, because Sterling is laughing all the way to the bank.

If the NBA didn't take action, they'd get absolutely shredded. The media has been tearing Sterling apart; they would look terrible in the eyes of fans if they did nothing. Fellow NBA owners have come out saying they don't want to be associated with these kinds of comments. Most of the league's players (75% of whom are African-American) would be furious if nothing happened.

The NBA had no choice but to take the maximum action possible. It's the only way to protect the brand.

Is the two-party consent different from "consent from those being recorded"? btw, police is a whole-nother ballpark, states have laws specifically allowing that if i'm not mistaken.

In one-party consent, as long as the recorder is part of the conversation, the recording is allowed. As far as I can gather, two party consent just means consent from everyone being recorded.

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.
...
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.

And police recording is evidently allowed pretty much always. My bad on that one.