Donald Sterling Banned From NBA Games For Life

Freedom of the press

Freedom of the press

Wait wait hang on a moment, if these are leaked phone lines, isn't that an invasion of someone's privacy?

I didn't misunderstand anything. The current excuse for Sterling is that his conversation was private or somehow constitutionally protected. Neither of those matter to his current situation. No need to carry water for every rich white guy that gets in trouble.

It is. Illegal search and seizure of information used to slander a private citizen.

looooooooool

If you're arguing about the application of constitutional law to this situation, you're astoundingly ignorant.



The method in which the tapes were obtained, illegal or otherwise, has no bearing on the consequences suffered by Sterling from a private organization. As reasoned multiple times before, they are separate matters.

not if one of the parties involved in the conversation hands it over.

They were handed the tapes that were illegally obtained

And they released it for your entertainment value (and advertising money).

Makes you wonder how these tapes were obtained in the first place, if it was a third party who obtained it or if it was TMZ who taped it in the first place.

But since you and Pleebo are ok with people being wiretapped for your own entertainment, then neither of you can ever complain about a certain Act passed by a certain administration ever again....

It was private.

The Constitution was earlier misrepresented by myself, which have been corrected by me, but if you bothered to even read it before inserting your foot in your mouth, you would have seen that. It has since been corrected, and even shown that there would not even be a defense for TMZ to hide behind.

Why are you playing the race card? Or is that the only way you know to backpedal out of your own mistake?

California Wiretapping Law

California's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. California makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the consent of all parties to the conversation. See Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute applies to "confidential communications" -- i.e., conversations in which one of the parties has an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation. See Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575, 576-77, 578-82 (Cal. 2002). A California appellate court has ruled that this statute applies to the use of hidden video cameras to record conversations as well. See California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal Ct. App. 1989).

If you are recording someone without their knowledge in a public or semi-public place like a street or restaurant, the person whom you're recording may or may not have "an objectively reasonable expectation that no one is listening in or overhearing the conversation," and the reasonableness of the expectation would depend on the particular factual circumstances. Therefore, you cannot necessarily assume that you are in the clear simply because you are in a public place.

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.

I did some more digging around about the two party consent law in California. This is what I came across:

If I called Pleebo a ***, without any indication of what made him different than the norm, that would be slanderous - because it's falsified or undocumented information meant to cause defamation of character.

In other words, no crime has been committed, since Sterling arranges for all of his conversations to be recorded.

well, since its in written form it's libel.

well, since its in written form it's libel.

How is it eavesdropping if he consents to the recording of his phone calls?

631. (a) Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or
contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any
unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically,
acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or
telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line,
cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication
system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to
the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts
to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report,
or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any
wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place
within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner,
or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so
obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any
person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done
any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170,
or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170. If the person has previously been
convicted of a violation of this section or Section 632, 632.5,
632.6, 632.7, or 636, he or she is punishable by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment in the county
jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or by both that fine and
imprisonment.
(b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged
in the business of providing communications services and facilities,
or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts
otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction,
maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of
the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment,
facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a
public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used
for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and
county, or city correctional facility.
(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of
this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall
be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other
proceeding.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 1994.

And since it's true, it's neither, lol.

Already debunked Also, CA is a "two-party consent" state In order to release a conversation to the public, both parties have to consent to it in CA. Sterling didn't, so there goes that little theory of yours. You should backread some.

TMZ didn't record those calls, and they're protected from any criminal prosecution for releasing them by the 1st Amendment. His ex-girlfiend can claim ignorance as to how they got to TMZ and TMZ doesn't have to divulge its source. The piece of ***racist lost and there's nothing he can do about it.