No inconsistency in those two statements. The NBA had the legal right to do what it did. Whoever taped Sterling and/or released the tapes may have violated California eavesdropping statutes.
True, but there is another “immoral” piece of the puzzle. The recording laws are in place to protect the corrupt. Politicians and other scoundrels have those laws to protect themselves.
No inconsistency? So the NBA can strip owners of their property rights by relying on illegally obtained evidence.
I'd like to see the agreement that Sterling accepted, that gave the NBA the right to exclude him from his own property. I understand the 2.5 million dollar fine, but that is supposedly the maximum agreed to by all parties.
OTOH, I am rather enjoying the difficulties this new standard creates for all the sports team owners and players. Like all the "laws" in this country, the NBA outrage is selectively applied.