This essay first appeared in Cliterati on May 4th; I have modified it slightly to fit the format of this blog.
In cinema and television, the goodies and baddies are usually distinctly different and in opposition to one another; the enemy of the baddie is a goodie, and anything done to bring down the baddie is automatically good. But real life is rarely like that; in the real world, the enemy of a baddie is nearly always another baddie (often a worse one), and things done to bring down baddies often have such terrible implications for others that it really would’ve done less harm to simply let the baddie keep doing whatever it was he was doing. As I’ve pointed out before, “Oppressions always start with those nobody is willing to defend.” When civil rights are eroded to “catch” scoundrels, it’s never long before the precedent thus set is extended by stages to cover everyone; furthermore, when some awful behavior becomes acceptable for ordinary people who lack legal “authority” over others, it’s inevitable that government actors will start doing the same thing. In the recent controversy over the leaking of billionaire Donald Sterling’s racist rules for his mistress, virtually all the media attention has been focused on his behavior, as though it were the whole story; in fact, nearly every person involved in the sordid affair has behaved abominably, and the episode is part and parcel of a deep illness in modern society.
Though many people have incorrectly cast this as an issue of censorship, it’s actually much more insidious. As prominent free-speech attorney Marc Randazza explained,
The First Amendment protects you from the government punishing you because of your speech. The NBA is a private club, and it can discipline Sterling all it wants…The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism…Nevertheless…What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong…In California, you can’t record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties…We all say things in private that we might not say in public…Think about what [Sterling’s] public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you…not only need to fear saying them in public, but…to fear saying them at all — even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear…The Sterling story is not that we found a bigot and dragged him to the gallows in the middle of the marketplace of ideas. The Sterling story is about how there is no more privacy. We live in a world where you can share your intimate photos with your lover, and they will wind up on a “revenge porn” website. We live in a world where our intimate conversations will be recorded and blasted to billions of listeners. We live in a world where, say a gold digger can spy on her sugar daddy, and the world says that the creepy old guy is the bad guy…In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano’s behavior represents the horrifying future…
Actually, I think Randazza grossly underestimates the number of villains here. Since the entire media apparatus is already focusing on Sterling, I need not waste words on further commentary about him. But what about his treacherous mistress, Vanessa Stiviano? Let’s dispense with the “girlfriend” and “archivist” nonsense: she is a courtesan, albeit an amateurish, unethical one. She didn’t “fall in love” with him, and he wasn’t so impressed with her librarian skills that he gave her a Ferrari, two Bentleys, a Range Rover, a million-dollar Los Angeles duplex and $240,000 in cash. Maggie the Librarian finds the claim that we share a profession preposterous, and Maggie the Whore finds the claim that we don’t equally so; both sides are outraged by her lack of professional discretion. As an archivist she is duty-bound not to divulge private recordings, and as a harlot she is duty-bound not to divulge anything about her patron; if she has a moral issue with something he says or does, she needs to find another patron or another line of work.
But there’s no evidence that she revealed the recording out of some high-minded principle of justice or primitive impulse to defend “her people” (Sterling’s comments were anti-black and Stiviano is half black). Indeed, she claims that some other party stole the recording and sold it to the gossip website TMZ; if true, there are two more villains for our list. However, Sterling claims that Stiviano released the tape herself in retaliation for his wife’s lawsuit against her (more next paragraph); specifically, it’s because Sterling and the LA Clippers basketball team (which he owns) have publicly embraced the suit and claimed that Stiviano “embezzled” her various fees and gifts. Given that a settlement is already under negotiation to ensure that no more tapes are released, and that Stiviano appears to be shopping for a “kiss and tell” book deal, I find Sterling’s version far more credible.
About that lawsuit: in this whore’s well-considered and experience-informed opinion, Rochelle Sterling launched it as a petty and ill-considered means of revenge against Stiviano, and her husband went along with it under threat that an expensive and embarrassing divorce would surely follow if he did not. I say “petty” because the total value the wife seeks to steal from the mistress is a paltry $1.8 million; Sterling’s net worth is $1.9 billion. In other words, she filed an aggressive and high-profile lawsuit for less than 1/1000 of her husband’s accumulated wealth…the equivalent of a middle-class wife suing an escort her husband saw once or twice. In the past, wives had more sense than to risk the Streisand Effect by calling attention to their husbands’ dalliances; many now apparently lack the sense and dignity of their forebears, however, and have abandoned discretion entirely to the keeping of ethical sex workers.
The baddies listed so far represent only a miniscule fraction of the total number involved in this story. Whether the tape was released by Stiviano herself or by this supposed third party she has declined to name, it was the existence of the tabloid media which made the release possible; however, those media are only commercially viable because of the public’s taste for the lurid and its jackal-like desire to watch and even participate in the humiliation or destruction of others. If there were no audience for the salacious details of others’ private lives, no lust to fondle the dismembered bones of the skeletons in everyone else’s closets, there would be no tabloid press, no profitable gossip mills, and very little blackmail; unfortunately, we all have that shameful curiosity to some degree, so there will always be a ready market for stolen secrets. At one time, discretion was the mark of a professional or a person of quality; now it’s increasingly becoming a quaint relic of the bygone past. And though the mob may cheer when some awful person’s sins are exposed, it will react with equal exuberance when the blood on the sand is yours.
Stupid, petty, vindictive. By everyone.
Thackery once wrote a “novel without a hero”, but this takes the cake.
In your lineup of revolting parties you have neglected the NBA, which group was fine with Sterlin’s long documented and notorious racism UNTIL his unethical mistress illegally recorded a private conversation.
What pattern of racism are you talking about? How can words and thoughts be racism? From what I’ve seen – he has a pattern of bigotry … and that’s different from racism.
Well, you’re spot on here that everyone is basically an asshole that’s involved in this.
The problem I have is this … his “crime” is thought. There’s no evidence that he ever used his position as owner to “exploit” anyone or mistreat anyone along racial lines. He paid black players the same as whites – in many cases he paid them more. He didn’t kick anyone off the team who was black – he didn’t refuse to hire anyone because they are black. To sum it up …
He’s not A RACIST.
The term “racist” used to mean using your power to abuse other races. I remember, back in the ’80’s – one black activist stated that it was impossible for a black person to be “racist” – because they have no political power available to them to exploit other races.
Thinking that other races are “icky” is called – BIGOTRY. And bigotry is not a crime. Sterling is a bigot.
Who … the fuck … cares?
And something else here too … on the side … he’s an old man and his mind is GONE. Now, he’s a rich man – and rich men are smart and politically capable – they know how not to step in a bag of shit during interviews. Sterling, when interviewed by CNN – was all over the damn place … rambling. His interview made things worse. No way that’s the man who – decades ago, amassed a fortune. The guy I saw on CNN was an old, decrepit man suffering from dementia – and anyone should know this. So why are we taking advantage of an old sick dude and acting like he has full control of his facilities and thinks clearly when he does not?
But back to my point. It’s a thought crime – and people want to deprive him of his property (the team) simply because of the way he thinks. If you don’t like what he said – don’t go to the fuckin’ games – boycott him if it really wounds you inside that badly.
Do we really want to go down this road? Where what we THINK impacts our ability to survive and prosper on this planet? Hell … bigot … I AM A HUGE BIGOT OF MOHAMMEDANS. I’m so frustrated with that religion, and the problems it’s caused for centuries – which don’t end but just get worse. That religion can’t get along with anyone. I think I AM superior to any fool that subscribes to that religion. So I am a bigot. Maybe I shouldn’t be allowed to have a bank account – or eat at a restaurant – or have a car dealer sell me a car?
I mean – I have Muslims living in my neighborhood … I’ve never threatened them … never done anything to them. I just think they’re idiots – is that a crime? Is it something that is so important to others that they need to use REAL POLITICAL power to destroy the thoughts in my head?
People who are OFFENDED – by anything – are fools – they shouldn’t be listened to. I can’t offend anyone unless they GIVE ME THE POWER to do it. And in that case – why blame ME for using the power you gave me? I give no one the power to offend me. Say whatever you want about me (and dammit – people have!) – it will definitely color my opinion of you but I’m not going to sleep tonight “wounded” by what you said about me.
We have become children – yeah, we’re all under 24-7 surveillance … but we’re also being scrutinized now for our THINKING HABITS. God help us if someone comes up with a machine that can read our thoughts – tell which of us is liberal or conservatives … which of us has THOUGHT about other races in a negative way …
We will all be screwed.
And the hypocrisy of all this is – I doubt there’s a single white person on the planet who hasn’t thought some of the things Sterlings felt towards blacks. And I doubt there is a single black person on the planet who hasn’t though similar of whites.
His “crime” by making that statement was indeed merely thought, but Sterling has a long history as a slum landlord in L.A. and was the target of many discrimination complaints then. So there at least may be racism there.
Meanwhile, I think he has quite a good case against Stiviano, not for “embezzlement” of his gifts to her, but for making an illegal recording which has cost him $250k and forced him to sell the team. I suppose Maggie might call that potential suit “petty” too, but since he has already suffered all the negative publicity the Streisand Effect would bring, he might as well file it (unless he thinks it will cost more money than it will collect).
He is a racist. It’s not just his bigoted comments, but actual acts of racism for which he has been sued by multiple parties, including the US government, mostly in the area of blatant housing discrimination based on race. You might want to do a bit more research before you pop off. Here’s a link to a brief timeline of his various racist acts:
http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/05/a-complete-timeline-of-the-donald-sterling-saga/371868/
LOL – this just came out … and I was saying above that we’d all be screwed when someone invented a machine that could read our minds!
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/05/D1-Tucker-military-building-brain-chips-treat-ptsd/85360/?oref=d-river
So DARPA is now involved in brain scanning?
I know this is for PTSD and treating other kinds of brain diseases … but color me skeptical. DARPA (and I LOVE DARPA by the way) … but they usually get involved in technologies that more directly impact the battlefield. I can see them researching tech that would enable them to scan a terrorist’s mind, so that you’d no longer have to use “enhanced interrogation” on them … and I wonder if this is where they are headed with all this.
Unfortunately, I can’t remember who came up with the concept, so I can’t give proper credit, but one of the problems of this case is conflating the 1st Amendment and the principle of free speech. The principle of free speech has to extend beyond simple governmental punishment, or else none of us are truly free. The principle of free speech is that we need the right to speak our minds without significant consequence. By that I don’t mean not suffering criticism or ridicule, but not the loss of your livelihood except in the most extreme circumstances. While we can disagree, even vehemently, with Sperling or Mozilla’s Eid, neither should be fired or forced to sell their private property over “bad think.” The idea that free speech means, sure, you can express your opinion and you won’t be arrested, but as a matter of course you can be fired from your job and have your financial life ruined is a frightening concept. As I always remind those who want to reduce these matters to only the 1st Amendment, the Hollywood Blacklist was not a government action, but one of private companies deciding they didn’t want to use certain writers and directors. So if you think it was just fine for Mozilla to fire Eid, or the NBA to force the sale of the Clippers, then you must agree the Blacklist was just fine.
Whoa … awesome!
As a progressive, I completely agree with this. It does not matter if it is the government or your employer who is doing you great personal harm in response to your speech, it’s wrong in either case. The whole idea of democracy is that the people should be at liberty to speak their ideas freely, and then others can debate them freely as well, and as a result of these debates, minds are made up, decisions are made, votes are cast. If you make the price of speech the lost of your ability to make money to live on, most people are going to shut up fast. (This is why the voting booth is private.) This is one concept that should be agreeable across the political spectrum, but I’m thinking the conservatives won’t like it because they don’t like free speech when it’s not ideas they differ with, and old-style liberals won’t like it for the same reason.
I don’t buy this equivalence. The Hollywood Blacklist would never have existed without Sen. Joe McCarthy’s bullying, which he had no business doing. I have no use for Communists, but if private business wants to hire them it’s none of the government’s business.
Indeed, even though almost everybody subsequently denounced HUAC’s “inquisition”, Congress continues to use the same process to force celebrities to disclose information they’re entitled to keep private. Both the hearings involving bankers after 2007, and those involving baseball players alleged to have used steroids, fit this description and were equally wrong.
I would either expand the 5th Amendment to give people the right to refuse to give any testimony that would embarrass them, even under immunity, or simply take away the right of Congress to make people appear before them.
The point, though, is that the Hollywood Blacklist was not a genuinely private process — Congress pushed them into it. And similarly today, universities’ “speech codes” and ridiculously broad definitions of rape are not genuinely private. No libertarian would assume they are legitimate.
jd,
That’s not actually true. This list began by “exposes” in The Hollywood Reporter in 1946 and HUAC actually decided to hold it’s hearings after the Hollywood Reporter stories were published and pulled their list of witnesses from the stories. Also, McCarthy didn’t start his witch hunts until the 1950s, several years after the list was already in place. While HUAC’s activities certainly made it easier for the film industry to maintain the list, the process started independently of the government, to large extent led by Walt Disney, by the way.
I seem to recall a recent interview with Stiviano where she said she was not Sterling’s girlfriend, mistress or whatever. She says they have no sexual relationship. Color me dubious.
She may have been telling the truth when she said that they have no sexual relationship. However, I’m pretty sure that they had a sexual relationship prior to this tape leaking, and that Donald Sterling didn’t give Stiviano all those gifts because of her librarian skills.
Unfortunately, very few people, even literate, educated people, stopped to think about the mechanism by which we heard Sterling’s comments. Or that the same thing could happen to them.
your timing is perfect on this. According to reports there is an agreement in principle to sell the Clippers to a former Microsoft exec.
I do find it amusing that people continue to refer to V as his girlfriend. She is a whore-pure and simple, under the guise of a sugar baby, but the difference is just semantics
This is one of those situations where Lord Peter Wimsey would say that it shines a bad light on the human race. I don’t think anybody came off looking good. And I’ve heard that this “mistress” of his taped his remarks because she was working with Magic Johnson to buy the Clippers at a reduced price.
As a person who grew up expecting very little privacy given the existence of the internet, I am constantly baffled by how much people care, and for how long, about other people’s private lives.
I am inclined, therefor, to lay the blame squarely at the feet of the media. This story is dreadful, but the persecution of this person is not a ‘one and done’ instance because of the media. The outcome of the case is almost meaningless, because of the media.
The record of these events will be perminantly available to everyone. That is the real horror, and the real violation of privacy. There is no more forgive and forget.
Think about living in a small town or village. Not something like Chicago, IL or even little El Reno, OK (biggest tornado on record). Something like Walnut Grove from Little House on the Prairie. Everybody knows everybody. You can’t fart in the wind and the whole town doesn’t know it before the smell has faded.
I haven’t heard anybody use the phrase “global village” in years, but that’s where we’re living now.
[…] Blood on the Sand. […]
KHorn is correct in principle. However, most employers would argue that granting their employees free speech would lead to insubordination and obstruction of the corporate hierarchy. Not to mention allow them to organize unions, or go out on wildcat strikes for better pay, benefits, and working conditions.
Business today is a holdover from the feudal system, but without the protections for the peasants and serfs.
This may be one of the best things I’ve ever read.
🙂