I see this less as ‘disciplinary action’ than as the economic decision of the other owners. They are in the business of selling a non-essential good. Their entire business model is built on people having positive associations with their brand. They are dependent on people buying tickets, and on companies creating a myriad of cross-endorsement deals for everything from beer to shoes.
There are many worse ‘crimes’ than what Stirling, but it’s hard to conceive of anything Stirling could have said or done that did more harm to their business model. The value of the San Diego Clippers, in Stirling’s hands, is now zero. He will get several hundred million dollars for selling the franchise because it is worth that much in the hands of another owner. But the other owners, through the commissioner are telling him he has to sell because he is damaging the value of their franchises as well.
This isn’t a judicial proceeding. The NBA is a voluntary economic parternship among the franchise owners. He knew that when he decided to buy a franchise. And what he said, though said in private and not illegal, damaged the value of the other owner’s franchises and they acted accordingly.
I don’t disagree with what you say; my point is that, in essence, private conversations ought to be kept private as long as a crime isn’t being committed.
This was a public shakedown of an old man, that is as plain as the nose on Barbra Streisand’s face. And whatever excuse is used for the shakedown (in this case racism) it is wrong.