It says "opposing discrimination". It doesn't say "discriminating against them". Would you agree that his comments were discriminating?

 

From a legal perspective I would say they do not have a leg to stand on. Is "offensive" the same as "discriminating?" Can words alone be discriminating from a legal perspective or does there need to be action?

Someone asked before but the max fine is $1 Million.

 

Not nearly enough, and chump change to him.

Not nearly enough, and chump change to him.

 

He will pay more to his mistress to keep all of the other tapes from being released.

Good article on what can actually be done with Sterling.

 

What's next for NBA in Donald Sterling case from a legal standpoint?

 

Step 1 for NBA: Confirming the authenticity of the recording

 

The league's first step is to confirm that the recording is in fact of Sterling and was not doctored in any way. This is an important step because the league has a fiduciary duty to conduct its investigations fairly and consistent with internal rules of procedure. If Sterling were to later sue the NBA, the league would want to establish that it responded responsibly to the allegations before taking any corrective action. In a statement released to TMZ, Clippers president Clippers president Andy Roeser raises the possibility the recording may have been altered and emphasizes Stiviano "is the defendant in a lawsuit brought by the Sterling family alleging that she embezzled more than $1.8 million..."

 

Confirming the authenticity of the recording could prove difficult. The original recording is presumably in the possession of TMZ. The NBA, as a private business, has no subpoena power to force TMZ or any other entity to turn it over. TMZ may be reluctant to share the original recording, especially if it was obtained on the condition that it would not be shared. TMZ may also be reluctant to share the recording because the recording itself could be unlawful.

 

Under California penal law, it is a crime to intentionally record a confidential conversation without the consent of the person or persons being recorded. This type of eavesdropping also empowers victims of the unlawful recording to sue for money damages. TMZ's own exposure to liability is far less than the person or persons who made the recording. TMZ is a media company with broad First Amendment rights, especially on matters that are newsworthy. Still, media companies can be sued for publication of private facts, and Sterling, an attorney by trade, could consider legal action.

 

Read More: What's next for NBA in Donald Sterling case from a legal standpoint? - NBA - Michael McCann - SI.com

 

 

Thanks for sharing the article.

 

An oversimplified explanation of what's going on with the recording of the conversation: some states are "1 party" and others "2 party" States when it comes to recordings (of certain types... there are still some types of conversations you can and can't tape). In a "1 party state" only one person in the recording needs to consent (i.e., the girlfriend running the tape); in a "2 party state", it's both.

 

I think that the majority of States are "1 party", but there are some where it's different and California appears to be one of those (631 & 632). Regardless, if it's just that, it would appear that she could be hit with a fine and that's it.

 

CA Codes (pen:630-638)

I do not agree that the players should boycott, the team is about THEM, not him! It's about the team, coaches, fans and the city! Not the owner. Doc's son had some very good comments on Twitter I believe about what the owner said.

 

Also, how much can the NBA do? In California, al parties must know a conversation is being audio recorded, unlike most states like Ohio and Kentucky where only one party (in this case it would be the GF) has to know that a there is an audio recording in progress.

Well they can't legally force him to give up the team.

 

Know what you're saying, but I also think that there are legal ways that, given time, they can make him really wish he didn't own the team. I think that's what will end up happening. Sterling seems like a litigious guy, but he's got the public at large, the NBA, and two different women (one his wife, one his ex-girlfriend) at his throats and wanting to see him crash and burn.

 

Edit: saw that you basically said the same thing later.

Know what you're saying, but I also think that there are legal ways that, given time, they can make him really wish he didn't own the team. I think that's what will end up happening. Sterling seems like a litigious guy, but he's got the public at large, the NBA, and two different women (one his wife, one his ex-girlfriend) at his throats and wanting to see him crash and burn.

 

He deserves to crash and burn.......

Tuesday 2:00 news conference scheduled.

 

Speculation is $500k fine and a one-year suspension.

I didn't know he and his wife had been separated for years.

Tuesday 2:00 news conference scheduled.

 

Speculation is $500k fine and a one-year suspension.

 

What does the suspension of an owner entail?

What does the suspension of an owner entail?

 

I think it means "completely" as in no contact with the team.

I think it means "completely" as in no contact with the team.

 

If he doesn't lose any money other than the $500k, doesn't seem like much of a penalty to me. Although I'm not really sure what they could legally get away with.

If he doesn't lose any money other than the $500k, doesn't seem like much of a penalty to me. Although I'm not really sure what they could legally get away with.

 

Nothing other than that.

This is minor compared to his past racist activities. It's a blip. Not only did the NBA not force him out then they cheated the Lakers out of a fair trade to obtain Chris Paul only to ship him to the Clippers. They really going to take a stand now after allowing him to stay on board for this long?

 

They have to now. This story is too well known.

30 years from now I think the player would rather have a title and ring. Their boycott won't make affect what the outcome will end up being imo. Not saying a boycott wouldn't be awesome, just that this thing is so big now that something will be done whether they boycott or not imo.

 

Diasgree. A boycott affecting a positive change is more meaningful than a ring and a title. Plus, anyone who has paid attention to the NBA knows the Clips and Warriors ain't winning a title this year. May as well boycott.