I don't agree with his opinion or what he said. I do think it was an invasion of privacy and possibly freedom of speech.

I believe that "freedom of speech" in the United States is a myth. When I was in school, we were taught, "I may not believe in what you are saying, but I believe in your RIGHT to say it." That is so NOT true anymore. You can only say what is politically correct to say.

What he said is horrendous. There will always be bigotry and racism but I don't think you can legislate stupidity and ignorance. If nothing else, his ignorance gets us talking.

Sorry, don't agree. Freedom of Spech does not mean there is no consequence for what someone says.

The NBA has a code of ethics that owners sign for within their contract. The NBA contract has everything spelled out when it comes to penalties if the code isn't followed. So the NBA has the right to sanction as they see fit.

Don Sterling should have been more careful about who he was dating.

ML

If you don't want it repeated, you should not say it. He obviously didn't care about his team, just the money they brought in.

I agree with you, ellendi.

Apparently, his mistress was disgruntled and set out to destroy him. She may have also inadvertently destroyed her own gravy train.

As it has been said, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

A married man who has a history of appearing in VERY public places (his team's televised basketball games, as one example) with dates young enough to be his granddaughter provokes peeking and probing. By his conduct, he's waived any right to privacy (if one exists, likely not) and invited investigation.

The NBA has a code of conduct he's subject to, I hope he gets rudely flushed down a toilet with much publicity. He's a slimeball, it's well deserved. If he wanted to stay out of the public eye, he could have chosen to remain a slumlord and avoid owning a business in the entertainment industry.

I think he is a piece of sh!t for the obscene stuff that came out of his mouth. I think if I were him I would demand the ho bag mistress be arrested for unlawfully recording me in the privacy of my own home without my permission. And I would sue whoever published it.

Though I detest what he said, I also was wondering about his right to freedom of speech. I don't think we've hear the last of Sterling or this controversy.

Maddie, are saying that Donald Sterling does not have the right to have a private conversation?
This is what I find bizarre. Yes, I can understand if he were ranting in public, or if he treated the team offensively, but this was a conversation that was supposed to be private.
It is now acceptable to tape private conversations and then broadcast them!

Sure he can have private conversations.

He shouldn't have them with people who might tape and share what he says. TMJ said that the girlfriend who did the taping says that he knew he was being taped. She has over 100 hours of tapes him.

Has Sterling said he didn't know he was being taped? I know he admitted to the NBA that that was him on the tapes.

If she taped him illegally, he can go to the DA and press charges aganist her. That doesn't change that the NBA and the world heard his racist remarks.

like the guy on CNN or CNBC said. "He has so much money and he is going to make so much more money when he sells the team, he is eighty years and HE DOESN'T CARE."

Agree about freedom of speech and private conversations. Despise what he said. Bottom line: Who cares what that ugly old fart has to say? It just isn't all that newsworthy IMO.

If he has that much money then I doubt he is stupid enough to knowingly let her tape his conversations regardless of how many hours she says she has. Why would she record him if it wasn't for nefarious reasons? If you listen to the tapes, she is clearly baiting, steering prompting him to say what she wants him to say.

California law says both parties have to agree to being taped. I think she would have a hard time proving that he agreed. She also says she didn't release the tapes. If she didn't, she gave them to someone who would.

IMO, the point is not whether he is despicable, the point is whether he is entitled to privacy in his own home? I too question the legality of the NBA's actions. If this took place in public, it would be a different story but the fact is, you can't punish, or shouldn't be able to punish someone because they don't think like you or don't act like you think they should (young girlfriends).

That is scary.

I hope he does sue just for the principle of it all.

Not sure if this is true, but on the radio this morning they were saying that she taped his conversations with his permission because she was hired to be his "archivist."

Joanie, wouldn't the tapes belong to him, then?

I find it very disturbing that there is so much publicity and fallout over his disgusting remarks and nothing said about Joan Rivers public remarks about the kidnapped girls that she made on the Today Show.

Teri, I'm upset with Joan Rivers! I've always liked her but I think she crossed the line. How could any joke about those women being tortured for ten years be even remotely acceptable?
I think Melissa needs to step in and monitor her!

He knew his conversations were being taped, phone or not. It is what he hired that woman to do as his "archivist".

She may have released them, which would likely violate a contract. Someone else may have had access and released them.

This is still not a "Freedom of Speech" issue. He was free to say all those things. The US Government is not taking away his freedom to do so. This clause prohibits the GOVERNMENT from banning speech even if or because the GOVERNMENT does not agree with the message. So the government is not taking any action, of course.

But his words DIRECTLY violated his participation in the NBA Organization. Owners HAVE to abide by the rules and bylaws of the organization. He didn't, and they kicked his bigoted sorry old behind to the curb.

More power to them!

If Sterling thinks a crime was committed by the woman, he is still free to press charges or attempt to sue her. But the NBA is still free to and obligated to discipline a member who blatantly violates the bylaws of the organization.

ellendi, I agree completely! I don't remember what car commercials she is doing right now, but, they need to be pulled!

You don't have to like what he said. You don't have to agree with what he said. The day it is illegal to say what you want in the privacy of your own home to a mate is the day we all have to be ready to give back our freedom. It is horrendous, the sanctions. NO ONE can mandate what anyone thinks!! He did not broadcast this. Punish her--she is the one who caused the pain, she broad cast it. It it has been kept private, no one could have been insulted. What he said doesn't matter. He has every right to his thoughts and beliefs!!!

I had also heard that he had given permission to record his conversations, for whatever reason. Therefore I don't believe it was illegal to tape them. And by allowing them to be taped, he potentially lost control of a "private" conversation.

No one said that what he SAID was illegal - this isn't about losing our freedoms. It's about the consequences of the choices we make BECAUSE we have the freedom to do so.

He's not being charged as a criminal because he spoke his mind. But if the NBA has a code of conduct for membership, and his conversations violated that code, then the club can ban him from membership. Just as any club, organization, or company can ban or fire anyone who violates a policy they agreed to upon membership or hire.

No one is saying that he does not have freedom of speech. Indeed, no one stopped him from saying what he did. But stupidly allowing them to be recorded meant there was always the potential for them getting out, and with the subsequent consequences.

Edited to add: "private" conversations, even if they are not taped, can and are still made public if one of the two parties chooses to do so. Whistleblowers, vengeful mates or angry friends often reveal what so-and-so said. It's like the internet - once it's out of your mouth you have no control if someone chooses to repeat it.

This post was edited by tally on Wed, Apr 30, 14 at 22:12

Frankly, the whole thing befuddles me. First, I wonder at the sanity of a man ranting against black people to a mistress who is black and mexican. I guess by definition, it's okay to screw 'em, just not be seen with them.

Second, the bimbo was retaliating against the wife, not her gravy train. The wife was suing her for taking more than $2 million in gifts and money from the jackhole that is her husband. The money he spent on her was over a two year period. So, bimbo figured the gravy train had run it's course and had nothing to lose.

Third, it seems his attitude and behavior was a well known secret over a 20 year time period in LA. He's gotten away with reprehensible behavior for far too long. As the old saying goes, Money talks, BS walks.
Too true.

Where was the NBA all these years? Maybe the bimbo did the team a favor. Not all states are two-party states. If CA is a one party state, only one person needs to be aware that a tape is being used, and that person doesn't have to be the person on the receiving end.

When an 80 year old man wants to get down and dirty with little girls, he needs to be able to take his lumps as they come.

As was said before California is a two party state.

I can't find anything that verifies that he hired her and he knew he was being recorded either. Not saying it's not out there but I can't find it. Her word against his unless there is something in writing between the two.

I think there are two different issues here. Is he an idiot? Absolutely! But doesn't he have the right to be an idiot in his own home without fear?

He has already filed a law suit. I agree with Mark Cuban on this.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sterling Sues NBA

Magic, I read your link and can't say I agree with the author's point of view. He even quotes the Article 35 that was the basis for the ban:

"Article 35 of the NBA Constitution, which gives the commissioner power to indefinitely suspend owners for âÂÂconduct prejudicial or detrimental to the association".

He then goes on to say that his lawyers are contending that "the recordings of Sterling were in a private setting, were free speech, and were not intended to be leaked", therefore they cannot ban him.

He can't be banned because it wasn't intended to be leaked? Isn't that a little like saying I can't be arrested because I didn't intend to get caught. I'm sure no one who has been banned by athletic leagues intended for their behaviors to leak out, and I'm quite sure some of the activities were done in private (George Steinbrenner)

It's been widely reported here in LA that Sterling's behaviors were well known. Many are questioning why it had been ignored for so long. I guess the tapes (legal or not) made it kind of hard to ignore.

As for the "mutual agreement" regarding the recordings it was reported in the LA Times:

"The conversation occurred at her home in September in the presence of another person and Sterling knew he was being recorded, Nehoray [Steivano's lawyer] said. He declined to state the purpose of the recording, but said it was "by mutual agreement."

It will be interesting to see how it plays out in court. I guess the question will be whether or not the legality of the tape has anything to do with the Association's decision (and right) to ban based on what is now irrefutable conduct.

Here is a link that might be useful: LA Times: Sterling

Yes, that is what her Lawyer says but I found countless other links that say he didn't know.

This will be very interesting when it all comes out in the wash.

I found this link By Kareem Abdul Jabbar interesting too. Just another point of view but he says it better than I did.

Here is a link that might be useful: Karram Abdul Jabbars Opinion

Interesting and certainly a voice of reason amidst all the hysteria. I agree with much of what he says.

However, many people have suffered the consequences of remarks they thought were "private", only to discover that once the genie is out of the bottle it can't be ignored or forgotten. Once it's out of your mouth, you've lost control. There is never a guarantee that what happens in your home, stays in your home (unless you're in Las Vegas!) Mel Gibson certainly comes to mind.

It's always a risk. As I said above, whether or not it was a legal or illegal recording could be moot. The behavior is irrefutable, and can't be ignored. So it's up to the lawyers to determine if the Association had the right to ban him based on uncontested evidence of conduct unbecoming. I think if there is a clear, written specification of the rules for membership (which Article 35 appears to be) then it's a private matter the association decides. And I'm certain the Association consulted with their lawyers as well.

Personally I don't have an opinion on forcing him to sell. I don't think that is so cut and dried, and I could argue that one either way.

This post was edited by tally on Thu, May 1, 14 at 1:57

quoting tally:

"It's been widely reported here in LA that Sterling's behaviors were well known. Many are questioning why it had been ignored for so long."

It's been reported beyond LA that his views/opinions were well known. The why is easy --- money, money, money. The recipients weren't going to stop their gravy trains.

That gawd-ugly 'girlfriend' now claims to be "very saddened" by the lifetime ban and claims to be "devastated" that the recording "got out".

If it had been "well known" about his racist leanings, why did the NAACP give him TWO Lifetime Achievement Awards? (I cannot verify that to be the truth, but read it somewhere yesterday.)

I think because of who he is, everyone would like to see Don Sterling on the chopping block. But, what does this say about our society? Even criminal in prison have rights.

It will be interesting to see all the ramifications if this goes to trial. And it should.

redcurls, the NAACP is rescinding the award they were about to give him. As for the two awards he got previously, I can only guess it had to do with his donations.

"One of the largest landlords in Los Angeles, Sterling has been sued multiple times over the years for residential discrimination against blacks and Latinos, and tenant abuse, as he tried to evict legal residents from their rent-controlled apartments. In 2009, he settled a $2.7 million rental lawsuit, the largest ever brought by the U.S. Department of Justice."

Here's a very interesting article asking the same question, and posing some very interesting conclusions...

Here is a link that might be useful: Why Would The NAACP Honor Donald Sterling Anyway?

I agree with most of the other posters who said that we should be allowed to freely speak in the privacy of our home. I don't agree with his comments.......he is with a non-Caucasian woman, and he only loves his team because of the money they make.

She was obviously out to get him, to get his comments made public.

I haven't heard anything about the Joan Rivers thing. How can she even remotely make a seemingly funny or questionable remark about girls who were kidnapped?? What on earth is wrong with her?

In the same vein, there was a large ad in Sunday's LA Times thanking Sterling for a $3 million donation to UCLA's Med School. Turns out, the ad was placed by Sterling for publicity and to thank himself. UCLA had nothing to do with it.

UCLA decided they don't want his money and have canceled the donation and returned the down playment.

Here is a link that might be useful: Phony Ad