- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 1,245
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As a long time NBA fan, this is not surprising to me. Sterling has always been a real POS. What is up with her recording private conversations though? I was under the impression that Cali was a 2-party consent state.
Extortion?As a long time NBA fan, this is not surprising to me. Sterling has always been a real POS. What is up with her recording private conversations though? I was under the impression that Cali was a 2-party consent state.
The NBA Constitution and Bylaws is not a public document. There is a 2009 version available online, but that is not necessarily the latest version. Hence, there is no assurance that the League does not have more latitude than what that older document suggests.
It is a 2-party consent state. The gold digger broke the law a bit in her effort to extort money out of her old boyfriend.
Extortion?
Such a mess. No matter how this ends up playing out, it's still a giant mess.
If nothing happens, a lot of fans are upset and attendance will probably drop, Clippers players are upset and probably won't resign, team sponsors are lost, the entire league has egg on it's face. On the other hand, if the other owners allow a huge fine/suspension or use other means to try and force him out, they are setting a dangerous precedent that could someday come back to bite THEM if they ever say something non-PC.
I also have to wonder how that would play out legally if they tried. Seems to me that some serious anti-trust stuff could come into play... I mean come on... A group boycott among competitors who collectively have monopoly power, to force another competitor out of business?... that seems super sketchy.
Very unfortunate all around. That team is finally winning and is fun to watch, and now this threatens to put them right back where they have been for decades. :doh
After listening to the extended version I have to pretty much agree with that. She was definitely pushing the issue.
I'm just curious if she is going to get busted for it, and what the punishment might be for illegal wiretapping or whatever applies. As ****ty as his statements were, he didn't do anything illegal, but it seems as though she DID since Cali is definitely a 2-party consent state. Pretty stupid for her to go public with the tapes (if it was actually in fact her that did so).
"Finger wagging Olympics" - great description.
In response to the Donald Sterling incident, Charles Barkley said "....We can't have an NBA owner discriminating against a league — we're a black league." Maybe so, but what do you think would happen to someone like Wayne Gretzky if he theoretically made a comment stating that the NHL is a white league. Statistically, that statement would be more far more accurate than Barkley's claim. But you can be sure that Gretzky would be labeled a racist and expected to attend racial sensitivity classes.
Great minds think alike....if I do say so myself. I was watching "The Five" last night on Fox News Channel and Greg Gutfeld made the exact same comparison.
That is a great commerical.
They'd have Gretzky's head for even thinking such a thing. See, now it's no longer actions that count. You can't even think your own thoughts without being called on it.
Political correctness gone mad. Unreal.
Wiretapping? Not really. But, what she did is exactly what some person did at a Romney event, taping a conversation. I'm not sure it's legal or illegal. I'm guessing that would be defined by local or state laws?After listening to the extended version I have to pretty much agree with that. She was definitely pushing the issue.
I'm just curious if she is going to get busted for it, and what the punishment might be for illegal wiretapping or whatever applies. As ****ty as his statements were, he didn't do anything illegal, but it seems as though she DID since Cali is definitely a 2-party consent state. Pretty stupid for her to go public with the tapes (if it was actually in fact her that did so).
She broke the CA law.
California | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
California
Date: August 1, 2012
Summary of statute(s): In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings.
She broke the CA law.
California | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
California
Date: August 1, 2012
Summary of statute(s): In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings.
Wiretapping? Not really.
But, what she did is exactly what some person did at a Romney event, taping a conversation. I'm not sure it's legal or illegal. I'm guessing that would be defined by local or state laws?
I heard a report that he asked her to record their conversations because he forgot things he told her. I guess he and she can answer those questions in a court of law if he wishes to persue the matter.
That's actually exactly what it is...
"If you are operating in California, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you might be "private" or "confidential." In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the California wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. See Cal. Penal Code § 637.2."
Source: California Recording Law | Digital Media Law Project
State law. Federal law is 1-party consent, but 11 states have 2-party consent that trumps the federal, California being 1 of those 11.
I'm not sure it's legal or illegal. I'm guessing that would be defined by local or state laws?
Isn't that what I typed?
I know nothing about California laws.
You put a question mark at the end, so I was answering what I thought was your question.
Neither do I, but google is my friend.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?