i just answered this somewhere else, I think.

The NBA has a code of ethics within their owner contract. The NBA (a business) has the right to punish those who do not abide by the code.

The idea that he thought he was having a private conversation has no bearing because the conversation did come out. He is still free to sue to his girlfriend for illegal taping.

ML

I'm no lawyer, but I thought you can secretly tape your own conversations without telling anyone...I guess it depends on the state. Most tapes allow it if one person knows about the recording...presumably the recorder...some states require all persons involved know.

He supposedly asked his girlfriend to record his conversations as an archive because he frequently forgot what he said. He is 80 after all. He knew he was being recorded.

Sterling has a right to free speech, but the NBA is a private entity and can deal with it as they see it under their bylaws.

He has been sued for housing discrimination twice, and there is a huge history of his practices in this area.

I agree ellendi. It frightens me that we can punish someone for private feelings and thoughts. He has been accused of illegal discrimination, but this is all about PRIVATE conversation between he and a partner. The out come of this is very frightening!! The PC police worked over time. I am hoping he uses his resources to have this over turned.

I am really torn on this because I really don't like the guy and I think that the NBA had a right to act for the benefit of their franchise. And yet...

I know that the first amendment protects only against government suppression of speech, but there seems to be the "spirit" of the first amendment which should be that you cannot be punished for your private thoughts. You SHOULD be able to be punished for actions, like housing discrimination, that are against the law. But depriving someone of his livelihood and/or his property on the basis of private thoughts, no matter how odious those thoughts are, somehow doesn't sit right with me.

There's been a lot of this going around this year, which I think exacerbates my feelings that this kind of thing is not right. The Mozilla guy who was hounded out of his job by the PC police for a political donation made years ago when he did not show any apparent intentions of altering the company's actions towards gay couples was, in my opinion, one of the most egregious examples of what can go wrong when the principles of free speech are not respected.

The way that Justine Sacco was treated also really didn't sit right with me, when a twitter lynch mob basically destroyed the life of a private citizen over an admittedly offensive off-color joke.

The PC police tried to do this was the duck dynasty guy. The whole Paula Dean thing. Those are just a few examples right off the top of my head, which is disturbing that this is happening so much.

It seems like there should be a difference between a social cost and an economic cost for "social" crimes like saying something offensive. People should stand up and say "we don't agree" and can stop being friends with these "offenders" if they want to and condemn what they said, but people I don't think should be losing their jobs or property over private opinions for speech crimes or for their privately held beliefs.

well said, beagles.....

The legality of what the ex girlfriend did is likely a civil action, not a criminal one. If she caught him on tape saying something illegal, then it likely wouldn't be used in a criminal proceeding. But her making the tape public probably opens her up to civil liability (like she's worried about that anyway). And, really, any more your right to privacy is essentially given up once you engage in any form of social media. Cell phone cameras are everywhere-you could end up a meme on the internet because you were got a piece of tissue stuck to your shoe while walking around the mall.

This rise in technology has opened up a HUGE can of worms for privacy issues I think. I know that photographers can't use your image for profit without your consent, but someone can film you, put it on YouTube and suddenly you're out there for the world to see (and hear) and as long as it's made public domain, you're probably out of luck getting that stopped.

It's become a social norm to call out people on their behavior, and if that person is a public figure, they're even more likely to be the recipient of cyber-attacks on character.

Citizens used to protest with their dollars-you boycotted something you didn't agree with-now it's just gotten much easier to do it via the many social media outlets. And, really, it's just enforcing that old rule-if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say it! We no longer have an expectation of privacy in this digital age.

Personally, I see it as a reminder to keep my nose clean. Don't do or say something that might come back to bite me if I can't handle the backlash.

The NBA is the business and he must comply to the standards of the Franchise in order to be an owner. I couldn't buy a MacDonalds franchise then only sell vegetarian food without risking MacDonalds pulling my right to own a MacDonalds.

Sterling violated the rules of the NBA. This was not his first or only offensive statement. I'm beginning to agree with Oprah. The racists have to die before we can have a more embracing world.

Like Pesky said, it's a reminder to think before I speak in all situations.

If this is true, it is absolutely heartbreaking. So much pain caused by this man. :(

Here is a link that might be useful: Sterling and His Treatment of His Son