I’m not arguing about the existence of the contact provisions. I’m arguing that they can’t be invoked as a result of the criminal disclosure of an entirely private act.
While supposedly private, Pam Anderson voluntarily participated in a sex tape. This was a private phone call made with every expectation of privacy. There is a huge procedural difference. And the NBA also aggravated the harm shading itself by not acknowledging these issues at least add much as it acknowledged the content of the tape. These differences count, and will not be overlooked by his lawyers.
Anyway, my opinion. We’ll find out though, because this obviously isn’t over.
But they CAN be invoked, because the legality of what lead to the stories has no impact on the EXISTENCE of the stories. He brought bad press, period. That’s all that matters, his actions were used to damage the shield, the shield HAD to respond.
Remember Pam’s tape was in her safe, there’s every expectation of privacy there too. It was taken, it was released, and places that didn’t want a star THAT smutty used their opt out clauses and got rid of her.
There’s no procedural difference. He generated bad press, the league punished him for it. It’s important also to understand the layers of this punishment. Silver fined him the maximum allowable in the by-laws, there’s no way the courts will overturn that. Silver banned him from games, he’s by no means the first person banned from attending NBA games, first owner yes but not first person, so again no way that gets overturned. He has urged the owners to kick him out as a franchise holder, that’s merely a request, again allowable. If the owners decide to do that their bylaws say it takes a 3/4 vote and their reasoning doesn’t matter, if the motion carries there’s no way that gets overturned.
He might sue, but any suit that comes to conclusion he’ll lose. It really is over, the only question is will he admit it.