Dropping the Banhammer

Photo from Getty Images

This news is almost a day old and probably overtalked at this point. But I feel like I should take note of what was a milestone day in American sports history. Yesterday was a day that could have far-reaching implications for years to come.

I'm sure by now you've at least heard about the comments Donald Sterling made to his girlfriend, if not actually heard the recordings. And after a couple days of deliberation for due process, as should have been done, the NBA determined it was Sterling, and thus banned him for life from anything NBA-related for all intents and purposes, and fined him $2.5 million. It's chump change for Sterling, but does make a statement. The biggest deal out of all of this is that commissioner Adam Silver is going to try to push the other owners to call for a vote to force Sterling to sell his stake in the Clippers.

I'll cut to the chase. What Sterling said was despicable. It's 2014; we should be far beyond all this racial nonsense. Sadly, these tensions still exist and we have a long way to go despite what anyone else may say. It's an attitude that has no place in society.

Screenshot of clippers.com (from Bleacher Report)

That being said, there's a major component ignored by the media at large that deserves some mention, and a lot of public commentary on a lot of the news stories ask these questions.  No one seems to be talking about the culpability of V. Stiviano, who made the recording. A lot of arguments have been made about the fact that Sterling was recorded and whether or not it was done knowingly. Some sources quoted in the ESPN story linked above say that Sterling knew he was being recorded, which is in accordance with California law (in California and some other states, both parties have to be aware of and give permission to be recorded; in others, only one party needs to be aware). Either way, the fact that these recordings were released, likely without Sterling's permission is alarming. I'm not sure if she can be prosecuted, but a defamation lawsuit from Sterling may follow. Some commenters on these news stories have called Stiviano a "gold digger" in that she may have released these tapes to get some money from Sterling. I'm not sure whether or not that's true, but it's something to be considered.

Photo by Mark J. Terrill/AP

The other argument that baffles me that other people have made is that somehow Donald Sterling's First Amendment rights have been taken away. I was required to take a Communication Law class as part of my Broadcast Communication major at North Central, and we did talk about the First Amendment in there. What a lot of people don't realize is that the First Amendment only protects you from government punishment based on what you say. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If I said something on here that was incredibly offensive, as long as I'm not placed under arrest or the government at any level doesn't try to shut COAS down, my First Amendment rights aren't being infringed on. You would have the right to call me an idiot, call for me to stop posting, demand I take the post down, or what have you, and I wouldn't be able to claim infringing of my rights.

There's one big matter that hasn't been attended to yet, and that's whether or not the Clippers can/will be sold. Silver did say he would like the owners to pursue this. And according to ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson, they can call for a vote to revoke his ownership. This would be a dangerous precedent, however. Even though I think you could make the argument that Sterling did damage the brand to adversely affect the league, the question is whether or not he did anything to violate a contractual obligation. If they can successfully argue that he did, we could see him forced to sell the team. But let's be honest: even though owning an NBA team is a privilege, not a right, and the government isn't involved, this is a largely unprecedented case for the NBA and American sports as a whole. Mark Cuban is right to call it a "very, very, very slippery slope". Even though I don't think Sterling should own the Clippers, is it the right move to force him to sell? What if, down the line, another owner says something in private that comes off maybe not quite as offensive as what Sterling said, but enough furor ensues that people demand he or she be forced to give up their ownership? Do we really want to open that can of worms?

Like others have said, this should have been taken care of years ago. Donald Sterling is a scumbag; this is not up for debate. What is is what should happen going forward. Even though it's 2014 and we've made progress, there's still more to be made. And I hope all parties involved don't do anything that could mean major trouble down the road.