Marc Randazza write a good article about Sterling for CNN

[Alex1776]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/randazza-sterling-privacy/index.html

(Yes I realize I did not post the link properly! On mobile! Copy and paste yo!)

[NaughtyVisions]

Originally Posted by alex1776

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinio...acy/index.html

ftfy

5678

[Alex1776]

Originally Posted by NaughtyVisions

ftfy

5678

Thank you, kind soul

[Joshua G]

it's stupid. the author has a problem with technological advancement. privacy is dead, its not coming back. Sterling is no victim. He's an old fart whose old ways didnt change with the times.

[JuicyBunny]

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

it's stupid. the author has a problem with technological advancement. privacy is dead, its not coming back. Sterling is no victim. He's an old fart whose old ways didnt change with the times.

NO. The author has a problem with Viviano's reprehensible behavior. He does not, nor do I condone what Sterling said.

"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?"...

"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?"

Not good for the world. Not good for the future. Think about the future when one of your kids say something stupid and they are executed for having an idea.

I stand with Randazza on this one.

[Alex1776]

Bump for controversial ideas!!!

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by JuicyBunny

NO. The author has a problem with Viviano's reprehensible behavior. He does not, nor do I condone what Sterling said.

"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?"...

"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?"

Not good for the world. Not good for the future. Think about the future when one of your kids say something stupid and they are executed for having an idea.

I stand with Randazza on this one.

Nice post!

.

[rapidworkers]

Thank you, sort spirit.

[pr0phet]

Sterling knew he was being recorded and was ok with it

[TCLGirls]

I am starting to believe that Sterling KNEW about the conversation being taped.

You have to ask yourself, it's been over 2 weeks since the recording was "leaked"...why hasn't Sterling brought a lawsuit against the ex-gf yet? Why hasn't the DA brought any criminal charges against the ex-gf yet?

Sterling is licensed as an attorney in the State of California, he could EASILY bring a lawsuit against the ex-gf if indeed this was a secret recording....the fact that he has not brought a lawsuit speaks for itself.

[dyna mo]

there is a lot in motion re: this. and it's all about to hit. Sterling has no reason to take the first swing, why reveal his cards before the league reveals their's? He's a fucking snake in the grass litigator and has interviewed the 2 top litigation firm's heads this past week here in la la

his wife is also saying not so fast, I plan to keep my 50% stake in the team so no, the team is not for sale.

and now some are coming out saying she doesn't get to keep her share either, due to her relationship with Donald.

[dyna mo]

oh, and re: suing stiviano, his wife is already suing her and there's no reason to sue someone who doesn't have anything anyway. especially when the bigger picture dictates your legal energy needs to go in suing the shit out of the league.

[TrashyGirl]

Originally Posted by pr0phet

Sterling knew he was being recorded and was ok with it

Now he is supposedly saying that he made the racist remarks to her because he thought it would get him laid?? wth. with all of his $$$ there aren't other ways to get laid? might have some type of racism fetish?

Get Laid

[TCLGirls]

What's stopping the DA from pressing criminal charges against the ex-gf?

[xXXtesy10]

where's that yellow fiber ring guy who wants to suck him off so badly.

[mineistaken]

Nba is a disgrace, showed their true face.

[Relentless]

Public figures and political figures should have a different level of privacy protection from private individuals... the same way they have different levels of protection against defamation than what private individuals get.

Mitt Romney being taped and having the 47% comments made public was a huge breach of privacy... of a political figure... and one that should be allowed.

This instance of recording a very public figure like the owner of the Clippers making racist comments also should be allowed.

Does that mean your neighbor who is neither a political nor public figure should expect the same level of publicity from private phone calls... no.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Relentless

Public figures and political figures should have a different level of privacy protection from private individuals... the same way they have different levels of protection against defamation than what private individuals get.

Mitt Romney being taped and having the 47% comments made public was a huge breach of privacy... of a political figure... and one that should be allowed.

This instance of recording a very public figure like the owner of the Clippers making racist comments also should be allowed.

Does that mean your neighbor who is neither a political nor public figure should expect the same level of publicity from private phone calls... no.

Sterling wasn't a public figure prior to the tape being released to TMZ, even then, he could very well argue he still isn't a public figure, based on the legal definition.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p117.htm