Sterling banned for life

[texascpa]

Because you hate a coworker you have the right to take his/her property and fine them over 2 million dollars? Doesn't it sound ridiculous when you change up the terms used?

Well, Mozilla employees forced a co-worker out recently because they didn't like his politics.

 

[texascpa]

I'm betting California also changes their laws regarding recording someone. I'll be they make it easier to use recordings in court.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

What rule or bylaw, as it's written, did Sterling violate exactly? I'm not defending him, I'm not being snarky, I just want to understand how this is being defined.

There is a conduct detrimental type clause...(as i understand it), and the by law says 75% of owners can vote to revoke him.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

There is a conduct detrimental type clause...(as i understand it), and the by law says 75% of owners can vote to revoke him.

OK, I looked over the transcript from the press conference. This is the most descriptive wording around the offense I've got (in bold):

The central findings of the investigation are that the man whose voice is heard on the recording and on a second recording from the same conversation that was released on Sunday is Mr. Sterling and that the hateful opinions voiced by that man are those of Mr. Sterling.

The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful; that they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.

Sentiments of this kind are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multiethnic league.

We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling's views. They simply have no place in the NBA.

A couple of things that seem key from the Q&A part of the press conference:

Q. The word you used specifically was outrage. You said that you were personally outraged, yet many people believe that they are outraged that for years people have known that this man is a racist slumlord and the NBA hasn't done anything until today. Can you please answer why.

ADAM SILVER: I can't speak to past actions other than to say that when specific evidence was brought to the NBA, we acted.

Q. Should someone lose their team for remarks shared in private as this is a slippery slope?

ADAM SILVER: Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views.

Q. Was the punishment designed in effect to get the message across to Mr. Sterling that there's no point in him there's no advantage, nothing to be gained from him continuing his ownership? And also in determining what the punishment would be, including the suggestion to the Board of Governors, did you take into account Mr. Sterling's past behavior, or was it just based on this one particular incident?

ADAM SILVER: In meting out this punishment we did not take into account his past behavior. When the board ultimately considers his overall fitness to be an owner in the NBA, they will take into account a lifetime of behavior.

Q. Adam, could you just explain or lay out for us what specific power in the constitution and bylaws you exercised with your ban, and what specific was it a broad violation or a specific violation, and with respect to the forced sale, what specific section of the constitution covers that, and is that a broad violation or a specific one?

ADAM SILVER: I'll let the lawyers lay out for you the specific provisions of our constitution. Let's just leave it that we have the authority to act as I've recommended.

Here's what I'm piecing together, assuming that we can take these statements at their word.

1. Sterling's opinions are hateful
2. The views expressed by Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful
3. Having an owner express these views heightens the damage
4. These sentiments are contrary to the league's principles of inclusion and respect
5. The views of Sterling are what have been condemned
6. Silver cannot speak to past actions. This response occurred in relation to specific evidence
7. Remarks Sterling shared in private have become public, and are considered to represent his views
8. It was reiterated that this punishment only assesses current behavior. However, the board voting on his fitness as an owner (ie, requirement to sell) will take in to account behavior over Sterling's lifetime
9. Silver declined to name the specific provisions and powers that granted the NBA the right to punish Sterling in such a manner
10. Silver reaffirmed that the NBA has the authority to mete this punishment

Now, to recap the punishment, as explained from the press conference:

1. Effective immediately, Silver banner Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA.
2. Sterling may not attend games or practices.
3. He may not be present at any Clippers facility.
4. He may not participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team.
5. He is barred from attending NBA Board of Governors meetings or other league activities.
6. He is fined $2.5 million, the maximum permitted by the NBA constitution.
7. Silver will urge the Board of Governors to force a sale of the team.

Again, I am not defending Sterling, but there is a MASSIVE disconnect here that is troubling. Essentially it boils down to this:

Silver, without naming a specific provision or power permitting his choice to do so and with no consideration given to past actions performed by Sterling, has banned Sterling from the NBA and the organization that Sterling owns because Sterling voiced opinions, views and sentiments contrary to league principles that were shared privately and never intended to be public. Which means, we can assume, that if those views do not go public, there are no grounds for these punishments to take place.

Because this blows my mind I'm going to say the same thing a different way - the NBA did not name a specific rule that Sterling broke, did not assess any rules possibly broken in the past, yet punished Sterling for making an offensive statement that became public but was not given in a public setting, and not for committing an actual racially discriminatory act.

I'm not talking about the First Amendment here. I'm talking about the fact that as this press conference laid out the argument (and according to my interpretation, which may be incorrect but was done with as much respect to the actual wording used during the presser as possible) the issue is that Sterling didn't actually do anything. He is being punished because the NBA was able to hear what he said.

I get it. A racist is being taken down. I'm not enthusiastic about the way this went down though. This seems really creepy. Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about this?

 

[rrlbees]

OK, I looked over the transcript from the press conference. This is the most descriptive wording around the offense I've got (in bold): The central findings of the investigation are that the man whose voice is heard on the recording and on a second recording from the same conversation that was released on Sunday is Mr. Sterling and that the hateful opinions voiced by that man are those of Mr. Sterling. The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful; that they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage. Sentiments of this kind are contrary to the principles of inclusion and respect that form the foundation of our diverse, multicultural and multiethnic league. We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling's views. They simply have no place in the NBA. A couple of things that seem key from the Q&A part of the press conference: Q. The word you used specifically was outrage. You said that you were personally outraged, yet many people believe that they are outraged that for years people have known that this man is a racist slumlord and the NBA hasn't done anything until today. Can you please answer why. ADAM SILVER: I can't speak to past actions other than to say that when specific evidence was brought to the NBA, we acted. Q. Should someone lose their team for remarks shared in private as this is a slippery slope? ADAM SILVER: Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views. Q. Was the punishment designed in effect to get the message across to Mr. Sterling that there's no point in him there's no advantage, nothing to be gained from him continuing his ownership? And also in determining what the punishment would be, including the suggestion to the Board of Governors, did you take into account Mr. Sterling's past behavior, or was it just based on this one particular incident? ADAM SILVER: In meting out this punishment we did not take into account his past behavior. When the board ultimately considers his overall fitness to be an owner in the NBA, they will take into account a lifetime of behavior. Q. Adam, could you just explain or lay out for us what specific power in the constitution and bylaws you exercised with your ban, and what specific was it a broad violation or a specific violation, and with respect to the forced sale, what specific section of the constitution covers that, and is that a broad violation or a specific one? ADAM SILVER: I'll let the lawyers lay out for you the specific provisions of our constitution. Let's just leave it that we have the authority to act as I've recommended. Here's what I'm piecing together, assuming that we can take these statements at their word. 1. Sterling's opinions are hateful 2. The views expressed by Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful 3. Having an owner express these views heightens the damage 4. These sentiments are contrary to the league's principles of inclusion and respect 5. The views of Sterling are what have been condemned 6. Silver cannot speak to past actions. This response occurred in relation to specific evidence 7. Remarks Sterling shared in private have become public, and are considered to represent his views 8. It was reiterated that this punishment only assesses current behavior. However, the board voting on his fitness as an owner (ie, requirement to sell) will take in to account behavior over Sterling's lifetime 9. Silver declined to name the specific provisions and powers that granted the NBA the right to punish Sterling in such a manner 10. Silver reaffirmed that the NBA has the authority to mete this punishment Now, to recap the punishment, as explained from the press conference: 1. Effective immediately, Silver banner Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers organization or the NBA. 2. Sterling may not attend games or practices. 3. He may not be present at any Clippers facility. 4. He may not participate in any business or player personnel decisions involving the team. 5. He is barred from attending NBA Board of Governors meetings or other league activities. 6. He is fined $2.5 million, the maximum permitted by the NBA constitution. 7. Silver will urge the Board of Governors to force a sale of the team. Again, I am not defending Sterling, but there is a MASSIVE disconnect here that is troubling. Essentially it boils down to this: Silver, without naming a specific provision or power permitting his choice to do so and with no consideration given to past actions performed by Sterling, has banned Sterling from the NBA and the organization that Sterling owns because Sterling voiced opinions, views and sentiments contrary to league principles that were shared privately and never intended to be public. Which means, we can assume, that if those views do not go public, there are no grounds for these punishments to take place. Because this blows my mind I'm going to say the same thing a different way - the NBA did not name a specific rule that Sterling broke, did not assess any rules possibly broken in the past, yet punished Sterling for making an offensive statement that became public but was not given in a public setting, and not for committing an actual racially discriminatory act. I'm not talking about the First Amendment here. I'm talking about the fact that as this press conference laid out the argument (and according to my interpretation, which may be incorrect but was done with as much respect to the actual wording used during the presser as possible) the issue is that Sterling didn't actually do anything. He is being punished because the NBA was able to hear what he said. I get it. A racist is being taken down. I'm not enthusiastic about the way this went down though. This seems really creepy. Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about this?

A lawyer tonight quoted what their constitution says and why Silver can do what he did.

 

[djcon57]

Does anyone else feel uncomfortable about this?

Do I personally...nope, but I'm not an owner in the NBA. Maybe if I was one of the other owners I wouldn't feel fantastic.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

A lawyer tonight quoted what their constitution says and why Silver can do what he did.

Silver's a lawyer.

 

[rrlbees]

Silver's a lawyer.

Wasn't silver .

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Wasn't silver .

I had guessed that. Again, from the press conference:

Q. Adam, could you just explain or lay out for us what specific power in the constitution and bylaws you exercised with your ban, and what specific was it a broad violation or a specific violation, and with respect to the forced sale, what specific section of the constitution covers that, and is that a broad violation or a specific one?

ADAM SILVER: I'll let the lawyers lay out for you the specific provisions of our constitution. Let's just leave it that we have the authority to act as I've recommended.

Seemed weird.:noidea:

 

[CuseFaninVT]

First amendment protections don't apply here.

Okay, so I found a cartoon that does a great job of this. Hopefully posting it works here as well.

 

[Guinness]

Okay, so I found a cartoon that does a great job of this. Hopefully posting it works here as well.

Love it!

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Love it!

Thank you for posting that full-sized.

 

[NKR1978]

Well, Mozilla employees forced a co-worker out recently because they didn't like his politics.

His employees didn't want to work for him because they perceived him to be a bigot. Given the competitive nature of the tech industry, Mozilla likely determined that the ability to retain talented programmers in a highly competitive field and to recruit talented programmers was diminished. The immediate PR hit was likely vastly outweighed by the long term damage to the company by not being able to retain or recruit talent.

 

[Cowtown]

The law is not about fairness or justice. The law is about striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. Sterling has the right to be a jerk and/or a bigot; he does not, however, have the right to act like one to the point where it affects the rights of others. So the NBA has the legal right to protect their interests and proceed against Sterling, just as he has an equally legal right to defend himself. Consider that, "the right to swing your elbow ends at the next man's chin." You can say or do almost anything you want, even some things that are not by definition legal or illegal, until they affect the rights of others. That's why we have a legal system, so that all have access to their rights under the Constitution. And the legally constituted authorities will strive to find the erstwhile mentioned balance.

It's probably a good thing that this has come to a head, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. For as Otto has asked, "Why now?" If Sterling has been a jerk for his entire term of ownership, why were his actions and words not unacceptable then, but suddenly seem to be now? And if the NBA did not act sooner, were they effectively condoning his behavior? Have other owners behaved similarly? This is the kind of question lurking in the shadows if Sterling decides to fight this.

Another issue is, "Where do we go from here?" For this is quite a precedent. Will the NBA come down with similar weight on the next poor unfortunate who unwisely utters the N-word on the gym floor, or even privately? Who is willing to take on whom, and over what? Can the owners effectively squeeze out another over some new grievance? And can you trust the rest if you're an owner who's a bit of a rogue? "The line" certainly does not apply only to racial incidents. As I said in another thread, once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult to know where he will go, and impossible to get him back in. All who enjoy the NBA better hope Sterling decides not to fight. But this most assuredly doesn't end here.

Just IMHO.

 

[SUbear]

Nope. He voted on the rules and bylaws. Now he is going to argue he doesn't understand the rules or agree with them. Hes gonna be like the last kid picked at dodgeball if he remains...actually the value of the team will go nowhere but down from this point forward..best thing is to sell.

Well that's not exactly what his lawyers wil argue. They will argue that these league actions were not based on business or anything specifically covered by the by laws, but were based on a private conversation recorded and released illegally by a vindicative female with whom he had some kind of private relationship. He is going to argue that he made no public statements that would be detrimental to the NBA, and can not be held liable for what was illegally obtained and released.

 

[SUbear]

The law is not about fairness or justice. The law is about striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of society. Sterling has the right to be a jerk and/or a bigot; he does not, however, have the right to act like one to the point where it affects the rights of others. So the NBA has the legal right to protect their interests and proceed against Sterling, just as he has an equally legal right to defend himself. Consider that, "the right to swing your elbow ends at the next man's chin." You can say or do almost anything you want, even some things that are not by definition legal or illegal, until they affect the rights of others. That's why we have a legal system, so that all have access to their rights under the Constitution. And the legally constituted authorities will strive to find the erstwhile mentioned balance.

It's probably a good thing that this has come to a head, but these things don't happen in a vacuum. For as Otto has asked, "Why now?" If Sterling has been a jerk for his entire term of ownership, why were his actions and words not unacceptable then, but suddenly seem to be now? And if the NBA did not act sooner, were they effectively condoning his behavior? Have other owners behaved similarly? This is the kind of question lurking in the shadows if Sterling decides to fight this.

Another issue is, "Where do we go from here?" For this is quite a precedent. Will the NBA come down with similar weight on the next poor unfortunate who unwisely utters the N-word on the gym floor, or even privately? Who is willing to take on whom, and over what? Can the owners effectively squeeze out another over some new grievance? And can you trust the rest if you're an owner who's a bit of a rogue? "The line" certainly does not apply only to racial incidents. As I said in another thread, once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be difficult to know where he will go, and impossible to get him back in. All who enjoy the NBA better hope Sterling decides not to fight. But this most assuredly doesn't end here.

Just IMHO.

Well said.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

Well that's not exactly what his lawyers wil argue. They will argue that these league actions were not based on business or anything specifically covered by the by laws, but were based on a private conversation recorded and released illegally by a vindicative female with whom he had some kind of private relationship. He is going to argue that he made no public statements that would be detrimental to the NBA, and can not be held liable for what was illegally obtained and released.

Interesting theory.

If you told your signifigant other that your boss was a beasteality lover and bangs goats on the weekends. Then he/she showed up with huge signs parading in front of your office space or sent a recording to your boss...how long do you think you would have your job?

He owns the team revenues but rents out space in the NBA and the Clippers Name.

 

[SUbear]

His employees didn't want to work for him because they perceived him to be a bigot. Given the competitive nature of the tech industry, Mozilla likely determined that the ability to retain talented programmers in a highly competitive field and to recruit talented programmers was diminished. The immediate PR hit was likely vastly outweighed by the long term damage to the company by not being able to retain or recruit talent.

Letting go a Co worker(employee) vastly different than getting rid of someone who owns it lock stock and barrel. Any employee can be released with little or no cause especially those with no union protection such as a CEO.

 

[SUbear]

Interesting theory.

If you told your signifigant other that your boss was a beasteality lover and bangs goats on the weekends. Then he/she showed up with huge signs parading in front of your office space or sent a recording to your boss...how long do you think you would have your job?

He owns the team revenues but rents out space in the NBA and the Clippers Name.

True if I were an employee and not the owner.

 

[HeaterCuse22]

True if I were an employee and not the owner.

Right, but he isn't a singularly held entity. He is part of an association in which he derives significant portions of his revenues. Without the NBA he would be an owner of a YMCA team. Which is why he is "defacto" a direct line report into the Board of Trustees, Directors, Governors or what ever they call it.

Which is why all of the other owners or a super-majority of owners is required to terminate his involvement. All silver said is that he will encourage all of them to do so and offer whatever help he can, since he is the "leader" of said Board, also working with a Direct line responsibility to the Board.

 

[two3zone]

I agree that Sterling should be long gone and far away from the NBA but names like Floyd Mayweather and Dr. Dre are being thrown around as being possible owners? The powers that be may want to look at some of the quotes that have come out of their mouths.

I'm not advocating what Sterling said at all, I think he should be banned after he showed no remorse or thinking he did nothing wrong. But the double standard of pushing him out and possibly allowing somebody with a checkered background when it comes to race relations of a different color just seems dumb.

 

[djcon57]

I agree that Sterling should be long gone and far away from the NBA but names like Floyd Mayweather and Dr. Dre are being thrown around as being possible owners? The powers that be may want to look at some of the quotes that have come out of their mouths.

"names are being thrown around"

Floyd Mayweather's name is being thrown by Floyd Mayweather because Floyd Mayweather has a fight upcoming that he's promoting. No one with any credibility has said any anything about either Dr Dre or Floyd Mayweather

 

[realorange]

Mayweather, Oprah, Brad Pitt, etc. At least with Floyd and Oprah they'd meet the requirements for ego.

 

[rrlbees]

Mayweather, Oprah, Brad Pitt, etc. At least with Floyd and Oprah they'd meet the requirements for ego.

I hope Magic gets it.

 

[AZOrange]

What rule or bylaw, as it's written, did Sterling violate exactly? I'm not defending him, I'm not being snarky, I just want to understand how this is being defined.

What rule did his wife violate?