ZP1 said:
In Sterling's case, I think that had more to do with the fact that any party that could have went after him probably had more to lose by doing so than what they had to gain. He wasn't just a public figure, he was a public figure with outrageous amounts of money by public figure standards. Not only that, but he's also a person that had a track record for burying people under litigation if they went too far in attempting to cross him. Basically, unless you had a smoking gun (what just came out), the risk of Sterling deciding to use the immense resources at his disposal to make your life hell was too high to bear.
There's a reason why places like TMZ tend to go after lower wealth celebrities as a general rule as opposed to billionaires. A pissed off billionaire can make life far tougher on an organization than a random celeb with 10-40 million to their name. Someone like Sterling is effectively untouchable unless you go after him with ironclad, indefensible evidence. Which thankfully is what he willingly produced in this event.
I haven't followed this as closely as some, but I've read the basic private v. public speech, "censorship" v. just societal reaction debates.
There still seems to be significant questions as to what happened - for example:
- Was the tape intended to be private, recorded speech or public speech?
- Who owned the tape and it's contents?
- Who leaked the tape and what the intention was behind it?
If the tape wasn't intended for public dissemination (whether or not Sterling knew he was being recorded) and was made public to interfere with Sterling's business relationships or contracts or to unfairly attack Sterling's character, Sterling may have both a lawsuit against the disclosing party, and legal theories at his disposal to diminish the importance the tape vis-a-vis the forced sale of the team and the fine. Hence the tape, while showing racism, may not be "iron-clad indefensible evidence," in the sense that it automatically establishes grounds for a fine or forced sale.
There's also the question of fact as to just what Sterling was talking about. (I read somewhere that the GF was supposed to use her free tickets to bring young women/eye candy to the front line of the game? - which implies some kind of intent that the tickets be used in a specific marketing way, not that Sterling was excluding only African Americans from an otherwise "open" admission?)
There's also the question as to whether Sterling was somehow baited, or was in a diminished capacity when he made the non-public statement (cancer meds? painkillers?)
***
For the record, Sterling's history and recent comments are strong indicators that Sterling is what the casual person would refer to as a "racist," (i.e., an active negative discriminator based on racial stereotypes). He also seems to be what a more nuanced person would view as an "institutional" type of racist. I'm
not trying to suggest his comments don't indicate a racist mentality.
I'm just not sure that Sterling's statements (in context of what I've outlined above) can be encompassed by a morals clause. The more I think about this, the more I believe Sterling might actually win re: the forced sale of the team. Perhaps also the fine.
Caveat is that we're early into this and now-unreported facts could get this to swing wildly one way or the other.
However, I'm
glad Sterling is apparently going to fight this; it means more information is going to come out. I'm with those who are a bit nervous at the speed with which this all took place. Sterling may have been an unpopular guy (perhaps justly), but as a society, we have to be careful with how unpopular persons are dealt with, since they are the ones most likely to be pilloried and dismissed. If the NBA is justified, it will come out via litigation. If Sterling was baited and targeted, that will also come out - but I very much doubt Sterling comes across as a lily-white victim at the end of all this. At the very least, a fight will cause the NBA (and other employers) to be more careful in drafting morals clauses and so forth; stronger and more specific contract language can only be a good thing vis-a-vis combating racism.
