tOffical all things Sterling thread

[TBBishop]

In other words "he was just kidding."

Absolutely outrageous.

He was definately serious and stupid. But he wasn't hateful like Sterling was. I can't believe anyone is trying to compare the 2.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Actually, if you are outside his house on public property, you are much safer from a legal perspective than you are as a participant, as being audible from a public place provides less claim that the conversation was indeed a private one. As a participant, you don't have a right to breach the privacy of the conversation.



Your allegations would be extortion as well.

People record private conversations all of the time - the police records inmates in prison, banks record when they are trying to collect debts, the police records simple traffic violations. Parents records nannies watching their children. What planet do you live on? It's been going on for decades. Stores records the parking lot activities.

 

[gordontrue]

Its not ideal, but the reality is that racist comments about a race that was very recently enslaved and mistreated in this country will get more of a backlash than racist comments about a race that wasn't.

And racist comments by a rich businessman who employs many members of the race he disparaged will get more of a backlash than someone else.

Okay, YOU brought up "recent" slavery.

He responded that slavery was abolished over 150 years ago.

Now you're changing it to "mistreatment?"

I didn't change it, I used the word mistreatment from the beginning.

 

[TBBishop]

I think he was talking about johnson PUBLICLY supporting a business that would purposefully disclude certain people based on race, color or creed.

Which would be against Affirmative Action laws. It's not going to happen. He was spouting off, saying stupid shit but again, it was not hateful.

 

[JDM]

Doubt it - this is a civil matter and she recorded the conversations in her house - just like Richard Nixon did decades ago before he had to turn them over to the justice department. There isn't going to be criminal charges - the NBA just banned him for life and fined him 2.5 million and are moving to remove him from the league.

This civil matter is bound by both the law and the terms of the contracts the NBA and teams have. Per what was posted in the other thread, there must be both a contract breech and significant harm to the NBA for the owners vote to even become a possibility.

There was no contract breech.

 

[HammerDown]

Yeah because we didn't know before, now we know. Are you serious with that statement? No, it wasn't any of our business but V or what ever her name is made it our business. His phone wasn't tapped, he didn't have a drone outside his house, she decided to shed light on his character. Yes, she was trying to ruin him. That's what he gets number one for being a racist and number two for trusting that this 31 year old nut job really just like his wrinkly balls.

She didn't have the right to do that! Stop pretending like she did. The private conversation was none of our damned business and you know it. It doesn't matter who we're talking about, that's the right we enjoy as citizens here!!! You're pretending like she did something admirable and courageous.

I hope Sterling sues the shit out of her and TMZ and wins.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Court Says It's Okay To Secretly Record Conversation If Done For Legitimate Reasons

from the i-may-or-may-not-be-recording-this dept

While there have been a lot of concerns lately about efforts to misuse "wiretapping" laws that forbid any recordings of people without their knowledge, it appears at least a few courts are recognizing how silly that is. Yet another court has now said that secretly recording a conversation -- in this case with an iPhone -- is okay, assuming there was no crime committed with the recording, and the recording was for a legitimate purpose. As the court noted:

"The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself."​

That makes sense. The act of recording alone, shouldn't be a criminal act, as it really depends on what is being done with the recording. And, in an age where not only is recording everything easier, but for some becoming standard, requiring permission to record all audio seems like an outdated concept.

 

[RaiderZar]

I didn't change it, I used the word mistreatment from the beginning.

But, no one, except in OH, have been recently enslaved.

 

[starbigd]

Significant harm is arguable, but it doesn't matter. There is no contract breach and thus no grounds to boot him.

You keep arguing this point that REALITY is proving to be wrong.

The ownership group can ABSOLUTELY vote on who and who is not a part of their membership. They have already proven this, yet you keep arguing against reality.

Good luck with that.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Court Says It's Okay To Secretly Record Conversation If Done For Legitimate Reasons | Techdirt

 

[TBBishop]

In California, these are equally illegal.

I've heard that and that is a legal issue for the State of California to deal with. I would be all for Cali charging her for her crimes. It still doesn't negate the fact that Sterling's racist views are now public knowledge.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Court Says It's Okay To Secretly Record Conversation If Done For Legitimate Reasons

from the i-may-or-may-not-be-recording-this dept

While there have been a lot of concerns lately about efforts to misuse "wiretapping" laws that forbid any recordings of people without their knowledge, it appears at least a few courts are recognizing how silly that is. Yet another court has now said that secretly recording a conversation -- in this case with an iPhone -- is okay, assuming there was no crime committed with the recording, and the recording was for a legitimate purpose. As the court noted:

"The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself."​

That makes sense. The act of recording alone, shouldn't be a criminal act, as it really depends on what is being done with the recording. And, in an age where not only is recording everything easier, but for some becoming standard, requiring permission to record all audio seems like an outdated concept.

And she was recording for the purpose of extortion.

 

[HammerDown]

Which would be against Affirmative Action laws. It's not going to happen. He was spouting off, saying stupid shit but again, it was not hateful.

Incredible double standard. Truly beyond belief that an intelligent individual could feel that way.

One said in a private conversation that he wanted his domestic partner to stop posting pics of her with black people.

The other posted on social networks that he wanted to ban all white people from the NBA.

But only one is hateful. Just fucking wow.

 

[JDM]

People record private conversations all of the time - the police records inmates in prison, banks record when they are trying to collect debts, the police records simple traffic violations. Parents records nannies watching their children. What planet do you live on? It's been going on for decades. Stores records the parking lot activities.

Anything public is fair game. Prisons are fair game as well. Any building that records in most states must post publicly that there are security cameras. Recording a nanny might or might not be illegal, but will likely never get to court.

In California, it is illegal to record a private conversation. Period. Being involved is not an exception. If you notify them that it is being recorded, then you can change it to not be a private conversation and be safe, but if you are secretly recording and they have the expectation it is a private conversation, you are breaking the law.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

What needs to be most wisely addressed is the question of 'private' versus 'public. What people do privately, typically in their own homes – and obviously within certain parameters of legal and morally-correct behaviours – is, in a properly free society, their own 'private' business. However, a sane and healthy society would require that its citizens meet certain standards of personal appearance, language and behaviour when they are in public. Furthermore, when a person is in public, that person is by definition giving away his or her 'privacy' and choosing to be being 'public.' Which means that the person is implicitly giving permission for all others to view them, see them, look at them while ever they are in a public space.

 

[HammerDown]

I'm going to be seeing one of my black buddies this week. He's a police officer and our daughters are good friends. I can't wait to ask him his opinion on this. And I have a feeling I know what a person with knowledge of the law is going to say too.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

And she was recording for the purpose of extortion.

Can you prove it? She says she doesn't know how those recordings got to TMZ

Good luck with that

 

[gordontrue]

But, no one, except in OH, have been recently enslaved.

I understand your point, its not lost on me. We could split hairs with the word "recently". With the impact that slavery has on a nation and generations of a family, I stand by what I said.

Personally, I think that everyone would be better off if we could move forward on equal ground as if one race never oppressed the other.

I just don't think its realistic or even fair to expect that.

 

[ThruTheEyesOfRuby]

In 10 Minutes, ESPN's Bomani Jones Lays Waste To The Sterling Issue

Y'alls need to listen to this.

Good stuff. When I was reading yesterday about how he treated tenants of the building he bought then, I was floored. I couldn't imagine... I don't want to imagine.

Imagine renting an apartment in a building and it's bought out by someone else.. and then that landlord (or his wife) starts sniffing around, just looking for a reason to admonish you and want to force you out. Could you imagine that? You live there and you're made to feel like an undesirable, right from the get-go.

 

[TBBishop]

Oh, and so that makes it okay now?

Nothing about this is OK but if he didn't want his private thoughts made public then he shouldn't have said them outloud.