Let me break the statute down for you:
"Any person who......
[records private communications by any means]
willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication....
That was the bimbo. Now, here comes the part you missed. Pay attention:
or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained..... [This is TMZ]....
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...."[This is how long the bimbo and TMZ can go to jail and how much fine they must pay.]
Now, granted, a corporation can't go to jail, but individuals inside the corporation who did all the above certainly can, and the corporation can be fined for criminal acts undertaken by its authorized agents. You'll have to trust me on that, it's not in this statute, it's in other ones.
Satisfied? Or shall we explicate the meaning of "in any manner".
I don't know why I get into legal discussions with nonlawyers here. When there is a thread on software engineering, or molecular biology, I sit back, sometimes ask questions, and appreciate the level of expertise that we have here on FR. What I don't do is try to pretend I know what I'm talking about on something I've never dealt with. Yet for some reason, legal threads bring out all kinds of people who slept at a Holiday Inn Express. You continue:
Sure they can. Sterling admitted that it was him on that recording.
What recording? The one that's not in evidence because it cannot be introduced?
Sponsors said they were cancelling because of what Sterling said. Players were talking about boycotting playoff games because of what Sterling said. Ticket holders were planning on cancelling tickets because of what Sterling said. His actions were responsible for financial loss
What did Sterling say? What actions did he commit? You can't introduce evidence of anything that Sterling said. You trying to introduce the sponsors cancelling as evidence of conduct by Sterling?? All that shows is conduct by sponsors, players, fans....and so on. The NBA bylaws refer to conduct by an owner, not conduct by third parties. Prove the conduct. Good luck. That, my in pro per friend, would be a fun day in court. I have fun with people who don't think through proof of the facts they are required to prove. The NBA knows that they had a problem. That's why they worked with Mrs. Sterling on a resolution.
No, you've made your...creative interpretation of the law very clear. So let me get this straight. If I were a Clippers season ticket holder and I said to a friend that I was so disgusted with Sterling's remarks that I was going to give up my tickets then according to you I'm guilt of violating the California Penal Code, Section 61? And I should be prosecuted?
A clear reading of the law makes it clear that the statute applies only to the party making the recording. The NBA is, at worst, a third party in that the first party - the bimbo - made the recording and passed it on to the second party - TMZ. There is no evidence at all that the league had any role in making the recording or distributing it. So the league can argue - successfully - that the privacy laws don't apply to it any more than they apply to any other individual who heard and repeated the recording. Even though the NBA didn't distribute the recording, they can argue that impact the recording had on their sponsors and players and fan base - none of whom are guilty of violating the law either - did cause damage to the NBA in terms of lost revenue and injured reputation, and that the commissioner had a fiduciary duty to take actions to limit the damage. None of this violates California law regarding privacy or anything else, and under Article 24(l) of the NBA Constitution the commissioner is empowered to act and apply the punishment he did.
What recording? The one that's not in evidence because it cannot be introduced?
You keep acting like this is a courtroom. The NBA is not a court of law and they don't have to follow procedures of evidence. The had Sterling on the recording. They have testimony from the Bimbo that Sterling said what he said. They have Sterling admitting that he said what he said. They have the reactions from the sponsors and fans and players. They have all that they need under their constitution - a constitution that Sterling agreed to abide by - to apply sanctions against Sterling to the extent that they did.
The NBA bylaws refer to conduct by an owner, not conduct by third parties. Prove the conduct. Good luck.
Again, you're acting like the NBA is a court of law with rules of evidence and constitutional protections for the defendant. You're delusional if you really believe that. The NBA is free to act on whatever evidence it wants to, legal or otherwise. And as to what they can do with that evidence, Article 24 (l) is clear: "The Commissioner shall, wherever there is a rule for which no penalty is specifically fixed for violation thereof, have the authority to fix such penalty as in the Commissioner’s judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association. Where a situation arises which is not covered in the Constitution and By-Laws, the Commissioner shall have the authority to make such decision, including the imposition of a penalty, as in his judgment shall be in the best interests of the Association." So basically the Commissioner can ban an owner and fine him up to $2.5 million for anything which, in his opinion and his opinion alone, violates the best interest of the association. It will not be hard at all for the NBA to prove that they followed their rules and did not violate California law. So Sterling can sue, but sue for what? Violation of privacy? The NBA didn't do that, the Bimbo did. Forced him to sell his team? The owners have never voted to strip him of his team. Sterling's wife decided to do that on her own. Breach on contract? How is he going to do that? He'll have to prove that the NBA didn't follow its own rules, which it clearly did, or treated him worse than anyone else under the same circumstances, which is impossible to show. Strip him of his team? It was his wife that did that, sue her. In short, Sterling can file whatever suit he wants. He's going to lose.