Nobody Cared About Donald Sterling's Racism Until He Got Up In The Face Of Basketball Players
There's a really good piece at TIME by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar noting how long it took anybody to take notice of Sterling's ugly racist beliefs -- and behaviors:
He was discriminating against black and Hispanic families for years, preventing them from getting housing. It was public record. We did nothing. Suddenly he says he doesn't want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn't we have all called for his resignation back then?Shouldn't we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn't we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen's privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney's comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn't steal the cake but we're all gorging ourselves on it.
Make no mistake: Donald Sterling is the villain of this story. But he's just a handmaiden to the bigger evil. In our quest for social justice, we shouldn't lose sight that racism is the true enemy. He's just another jerk with more money than brains.
So, if we're all going to be outraged, let's be outraged that we weren't more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let's be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let's be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on Celebrity Apprentice and Dancing with the Stars.
Marc J. Randazza, the First Amendment Lawyer who saved my activist butt from the TSA woman who got a lawyer and tried to get $500K out of me, weighs in at CNN on the taping of Sterling -- correctly noting that it's "morally wrong" (as well as legally):
Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.Start with illegal. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. Once she gathered this information, someone leaked it (she denies it was her) -- and it went viral. This is where I think things went morally wrong.
We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?
The Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements, and he's been nationally pilloried, too -- but he chose to make those statements to the world. He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him.
But does Sterling? Think about what his public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you now not only need to fear saying them in public, but you need to fear saying them at all -- even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear.
Isn't it bad enough that the National Security Agency can spy on all of us? How can we complain when we condone giving our closest friends the ability to do worse -- perhaps just to try and destroy us.
...In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano's behavior represents the horrifying future. Shouldn't we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man's racist blathering?
Let's be outraged at the hypocrisy of the NAACP which was prepared to give (er ... sell) this guy not one, but two, Lifetime Achievement Awards.
Keep poor African-Americans out of your apartment buildings? No problem. Insult rich African-American professional basketball players? Problem.
And then the NAACP had the audacity to tell the NBA that a lifetime ban was "not enough" and demand a sit-down to discuss what the NBA was going to do to address issues like this going forward.
Conan the Grammarian at May 1, 2014 8:27 AM
I found both Jabbar's and Randazza's essays very interesting.
Regarding only the legality of taping it in California, my own personal experience is that one party consent laws are more favorable to justice than two party consent laws. I think of myself as a pretty strong privacy advocate but I've always disliked California's two party consent laws.
And the whole framework of our modern wiretapping laws is insane, based on telephone technology from 1925, 90 years ago. That's why it's illegal to record audio, but not illegal to record video.
It would have been legal to tape this guy without sound, but it's illegal to record his voice. There is no sense in that.
jerry at May 1, 2014 8:41 AM
Yes, I also felt like this was a private conversation that shouldn't have been heard by anyone else and that the repercussions are uncalled for. I have not heard the recording and never plan to listen to it. I never even knew Donald Sterling existed up to this point.
Fayd at May 1, 2014 8:54 AM
The other thing we've learned about wiretap laws recently is that prosecutors regard them as handy tools for selective prosecution and harassment. Record your wealthy ex saying something embarrassing and ruin his reputation? No problem. Record people who are beating you up in school? Expulsion and felony charges. Gotta keep the peasants in line.
Cousin Dave at May 1, 2014 9:12 AM
"He's just another jerk with more money than brains."
No no no no NO.
He has lots of money and, therefore, is a job creator and must be coddled.
Reduce his taxes or America will surely fall.
Besides, this is the only instance of his racism that had an effect on other wealthy people of note. Ignore the housing discrimination, those people RENT, for Christ's sake. They simply don't matter.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2014 9:40 AM
My impression of what he told Stiviano boils down to:
Don't let yourself be seen with black men in public, or people will think you're trash.
Is the howling lynch mob going to deny there's any truth to that?
Nothing but silence from Sterling's corner so far. I wonder if he has any juicy dirt on other team owners & NBA officials that will come out if he decides to fight a forced sale in court.
Martin at May 1, 2014 9:52 AM
I think Marc is partially wrong on this one.
My understanding is that he consented to the recordings-he was old and forgetful and often had his side piece record him.
But the wife wanted like 1.8 million back he had spent on his gf. So there were legal proceedings and the gf told both of them in no uncertain terms this would happen if they didn't back off.
The guy has a record of having affairs, and requesting the money back.
Because you know half black half Mexican chicks are really into him for his hot 80 year old bod'
(And I'm curious how she will paint herself as the victim here)
Ppen at May 1, 2014 11:13 AM
"Don't let yourself be seen with black men in public, or people will think you're trash.
Is the howling lynch mob going to deny there's any truth to that?"
Martin are you fucking serious?
She's half black, I guess she should never take any pics with her dad.
Ppen at May 1, 2014 11:19 AM
I know that. Nonetheless, Sterling repeatedly told her that it was OK for her to be with black men, but not on Instagram, and not at the games (where everybody could see them). That seemed strange to me.
Martin at May 1, 2014 11:46 AM
It is a modern day witch hunt for racists. Any evidence will do, illegally obtained or not.
Remember how discrimination against gays morphed from treating them badly in the work place to making political donations to causes they didn't like?
There are constitutional rights, and property issues at stake here. I predict a long nasty court battle with a lot of mud on the NBA and many of the other team owners.
I think there is a very good chance, if Mr Sterling lives another five years or so, that this could end very poorly for the NBA.
Isab at May 1, 2014 2:59 PM
What property rights are being violated?
The NBA isn't a government organization-they can force a sale -it's in the contract every owner signs.
You can say whatever you want about gays, or blacks or whatever. But the things you say have consequences. The government protects your right to say things -but it doesn't protect you from being socially ostracized and I don't see why it should protect you from being fired from a private sector job.
If I work at a cross manufacturing facility and I talk about the "Christianity mafia" in interviews and my employer fires me I don't see why it would be any different than what happened to the Mozilla CEO or to this guy. Companies are very sensitive to how they appear.
It was an open secret and the NBA didn't care, not even when a black coach sued him. It's just it's on tape now so.....
Ppen at May 1, 2014 4:57 PM
"What property rights are being violated?
The NBA isn't a government organization-they can force a sale -it's in the contract every owner signs."
There is a very seductive fantasy that no one but the federal government has the ability to violate your constitutional rights.
Contracts are complicated. The NBA can force a sale under certain conditions, and for certain reasons spelled out in the contract. Private comments tape recorded by a vindictive ex girlfriend may not fall under the reasons spelled out in the contract.
If they can force a sale for any reason, like 'we don't like what you said,' or 'who you gave money to in the last election', what do you think that does to the market value of an NBA franchise?
This is why smart people don't buy property or invest in businesses in third world banana republics. It is because property rights are only good until the government changes their mind about who they want to give the property to.
Isab at May 1, 2014 6:16 PM
I'm looking forward for this to spiral
How long until the private vies of NBA owners on subjects such as gay marriage or abortion get recorded?
How long until the owner of the Redskins is forced to sell for being such a racist for not changing the teams name?
lujlp at May 1, 2014 6:55 PM
"If they can force a sale for any reason, like 'we don't like what you said,' or 'who you gave money to in the last election', what do you think that does to the market value of an NBA franchise"
They have to get 3/4 of the other owners approval to force a sale. So it's not just the NBA who has all the power and can decide such things on a whim.
You're stretching it-the guy was a known racist with several comments already on the public record. A prominent manager had already sued him.
But when the media ran with this story and they lost all their sponsors they had to do something drastic. Now those two things do more to the market value than whatever other hypothetical scenarios you are bringing up (like who they gave money to in the last election).
And then when their black players were ready to boycott well fuck damn....
And as to the gay issue homophobia is acceptable in the black community and there are tons of other owners with crazy ass views who have sense enough not to tell their gfs to record them and then sue them for all money they spent on them back.
This was public knowledge for a long time and the NBA didn't care because $$$$$$$$$$$
Ppen at May 1, 2014 7:11 PM
There is a very seductive fantasy that no one but the federal government has the ability to violate your constitutional rights."
If I choose to join a private club and buy some aspect of that club that makes a lot of money, and then publicly hurt their money making abilities why can't they force me out?
Ppen at May 1, 2014 7:16 PM
If I choose to join a private club and buy some aspect of that club that makes a lot of money, and then publicly hurt their money making abilities why can't they force me out?
The NBA isn't a private club. It is more like an investment bank.
The remedy under contract for someone who is a shareholder "hurting" their money making abilities will be determined by the charter, and the contract it was organized under.
First you have to determine what those financial damages were, if there are any. For example money losses for something as ephemeral as lost profits from a boycott, are not something that can be recovered under a contract.
I have already said that I am not sure the NBA franchise agreement, which the owners sign, is broad enough to cover, damages caused by a third party (the girlfriend leaking the tape). So try again. You analogy isn't applicable.
Isab at May 1, 2014 7:44 PM
"You're stretching it-the guy was a known racist with several comments already on the public record. A prominent manager had already sued him."
So what?
Hate to break this to you, but being a racist, or a homophobe, is neither illegal nor a reason to divest you of your property.
And being sued is not evidence of guilt.
Why is it that you, and several other people, think we can just ignore the law and the contract when it comes to the rights of someone we don't like?
Isab at May 1, 2014 7:50 PM
A basketball team isn't property like a house or a car-your ownership is dependent on the approval of 3/4 of the majority. You cant just buy one because you have money. That's why you can force a sale. Because you never fully own a team. You can paint your car purple but you can't do simple things like change the players shoes without prior approval.
You're missing the point-like always-they will never ever say they are dumping this guy because of money or boycotts. Why would they paint themselves that way? Don't you see they realllly care about decency. He is ruining the decency of the NBA!
Sure they knew for years what this guys views were but the fucker wasn't taped.
You know who Galliano is? No? Oh right you're outdated. The fucker had a fashion house behind him and it was well known for years he hated Jews. But the fucker was taped recently. Boom lost it all.
So a 80 year old guy, with confirmed racist public comments. NBA doesnt care until the media cares.
He has his gf tape him for four years because he is forgetful, dumps her, sues her for 1.8 million, and gets the tapes leaked.
This isn't a racist guy loosing his private property. He is loosing a team in a private club.
Ppen at May 1, 2014 8:29 PM
"Why is it that you, and several other people, think we can just ignore the law and the contract when it comes to the rights of someone we don't like? "
You're the one ignoring law and contract, when the terms are you can force a sale and ban an owner.
Ppen at May 1, 2014 8:34 PM
The only criminal law in all of this is whether the GF could legally record the conversation. It's probably a misdemeanor level crime anyway.
The PC side is what the public thinks of of the asshole (Sterling) but it still doesn't get to a deprivation of rights for him say his views.
Then we get into contact law. The NBA has a contract with Sterling as the owner of the L.A. Clippers franchise.
Depending on how the contract is written makes the difference of what the NBA and other franchise owners can do to whether to force a sale. If the contract is written that a 75% vote can force a sale of the franchise for any, or no, reason then that is the contract he signed. If the contract is written that a 75% vote can force a sale of the franchise for certain grounds then that is the contract he signed.
The "certain grounds" would need to be spelled out. If bigotry doesn't fall in the "certain grounds" then the NBA is screwed.
Without the contract available and a contract lawyer we won't really know.
But what disgusts me is that the NBA, players, and all the rest have never said shit before. But now that a recording, made in a private situation, brings it all to a head. Why didn't it happen before?
Jim P. at May 1, 2014 9:08 PM
The "certain grounds" would need to be spelled out. If bigotry doesn't fall in the "certain grounds" then the NBA is screwed.
Without the contract available and a contract lawyer we won't really know.
But what disgusts me is that the NBA, players, and all the rest have never said shit before. But now that a recording, made in a private situation, brings it all to a head. Why didn't it happen before?
Posted by: Jim P. at May 1, 2014 9:08 PM
You are correct. Some contracts end up in court because the lose terms are unconscionable or unenforeceable.
Not all lawyers are going to be in agreement as to how the agreement should be interperated.
Rumor has it, that the NBA owners agreement is very secretive.
Sterling is likely to file an anti trust case, and discovery will be a bitch. Everything, will come out prior to trial. If there are ugly things in the agreement or any of the other owners has said anything nasty about anyone, it will tear the entire NBA apart.
The NBA is well known to be very homophobic.
Take a guess, what things, both players and owners may have said, that was caught on a microphone somewhere.
The reason it didnt happen before is because it wasn't a priority or politically expedient. Personally I think the new NBA commissioner is a stupid jackass,
He shot off his mouth to appease the mob, without bothering to find out if he can even legally do, what he said he was going to do.
Like everthing else these days. Lots of hot air, and no substance.
Isab at May 1, 2014 11:08 PM
"Why is it that you, and several other people, think we can just ignore the law and the contract when it comes to the rights of someone we don't like? "
You're the one ignoring law and contract, when the terms are you can force a sale and ban an owner.
Posted by: Ppen at May 1, 2014 8:34 PM
I am sure you know exactly what the terms are since you are no doubt both a contract lawyer, and the owner of an NBA team.
I have both the Juris doctorate and years of experience in the area of contract law.
You? I don't think so.
Isab at May 1, 2014 11:20 PM
The only criminal law in all of this is whether the GF could legally record the conversation. It's probably a misdemeanor level crime anyway.
Girlfriend's lawyer claims she had permission from Sterling to record, so there may not even be a crime there.
Astra at May 2, 2014 5:05 AM
Laws requiring 2-party consent for recording a conversation are a legislature's gift to crooks and liars - especially themselves. Anyone who is a part of a conversation should be able to record it and use it in court.
I can see laws limiting the circumstances in which one can publicly release the recording without the other party's consent.
markm at May 2, 2014 7:03 AM
I'm sure Sterling's NBA ownership contract contains a clause banning "conduct detrimental to the league." Being caught making racist comments in a league in which 75% of the players are African-American could be construed as "detrimental to the league" in that it could cause the players' union to stage a walk-out or alienate a significant portion of the fan base. So, forced sale.
As for the league's reported homophobia, when the players' union is willing to threaten a walk-out or the fans are willing to stay away in droves on behalf of the gay players, the league will adjust its thinking. Until then, Jason Collins is on his own.
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2014 7:45 AM
And by "detrimental to the league" I mean detrimental to the league's wallet.
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2014 7:45 AM
It gets weirder. Make sure you read all the way to the end.
Cousin Dave at May 2, 2014 8:32 AM
I'm sure Sterling's NBA ownership contract contains a clause banning "conduct detrimental to the league."
Probably does. Lets see lawyers argue that a private conversation between an owner and his sex buddy qualify as conduct.
From what I understand Sterling is the owner that been around the longest. If he's as big a bastard as everyone claims then he's got dirt on other owners.
This should be fun.
lujlp at May 2, 2014 10:57 AM
Actually, I'm sort of looking forward to the next "big news break" because this one is getting sooo boring already. (Hey dude, where's my plane?)
Charles at May 2, 2014 5:45 PM
I saw an interview with Stiviano last night. Attractive woman but she sure came across as the stereotypical pretty bimbo.
My favorite answer of hers (I loved "right-hand arm"):
Q: Can you tell us about your relationship with him?
A: I'm his right-hand arm man. I'm his best friend, his confidant. His silly rabbit.
JD at May 3, 2014 8:29 AM
Leave a comment