Essential Rights

I could write yet another article bashing Donald Sterling, but that wouldn’t make for a very interesting story. It is obvious that his statements were detestable and deplorable. But the real question goes deeper; it’s not a matter of whether or not his comments were justified—they clearly weren’t—it’s a matter of whether while he was in the privacy of his home, clearly unaware he was being recorded, his rant should legally be held against him.According to the first amendment, the government cannot punish him for expressing his thoughts or ideas, and they did not. As a private organization, the NBA is legally able to penalize Sterling as much as they want. In California, however, state law prohibits the unauthorized recording of a private conversation unless both parties give consent. He did not. So to what extent does the law allow his prosecution? This is the widely debated question, but at the same time, not very controversial. Most people support his punishment, but isn’t this, too, biased? It appears that he is being punished for holding an unpopular opinion that he only expressed in the privacy of his home. While the government is unable to discipline him, the NBA, as well as the general public, is, and he now faces a 2.5 million dollar fine, a ban from the NBA for life, and a mandate to sell the Clippers.Before you get outraged at my comments, realize that I am not sympathizing with him, but rather raising the scary, and too real, idea of the slow crumbling of our personal privacy. He expressed these ideas privately, with an intimate friend, in a confidential environment. These were not developed, well thought out ideas; on the contrary, if you listen to the recording, they are more along the lines of a jumbled rant. His crime is not an outspoken public statement, but merely the physical manifestation of a thought. Does this mean no one is safe to express controversial opinions in a private environment for fear that a friend is recording it and that the conversation will be leaked to the Internet? That appears to be the direction this country is heading. The issue at hand is much more influential than the racist, bigoted rambling of an eighty-year-old billionaire. The bottom line is that his rights to privacy were violated, and that is impossible to unhear. No one will forgive him for this, nor should he be forgiven, but who is to say that this will stop here? If leaked confidential information goes unpunished because it is easier to submit to the mob mentality and condemn the racist for his nearly unspoken crimes than to realize he is as much the victim as he is the villain, then what is there to discourage the same act of illegal wiring of conversations in the future?In law, the Exclusionary Rule states that evidence acquired through illegal means must (with a few exceptions) be discarded and cannot be used against the defendant, regardless of how absolute it is. In fact, if too much illicitly acquired evidence is irrevocably revealed, then the entire trial can be thrown away and termed a mistrial. This was instituted in order to protect the basic constitutional rights of each individual.Sterling’s rights were violated, yet he still faces the full consequences of his actions because this isn’t a legal case, but rather a condemnation of his public relations, as well as punishment from a private corporation. In the end, who has done more harm: Sterling, a racist who has now lost his public credibility and incurred a relatively small fine, or a very smug someone who facilitated the tapes and consequently paved the path for the acceptance of more leaked, “confidential” information?