This past week , my inbox blew up with e-mails asking whether Donald Sterling 's First Amendment rights were violated in the uproar over the Los Angeles Clippers owner 's racist remarks about black people . After all , he was simply expressing his views , however unpopular . While he did have some rights violated , his First Amendment rights remain intact . 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 . What about the chorus of criticism ? Are we all violating his First Amendment rights by criticizing him ? We are punishing him for his speech . Nope . The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism . In fact , that 's the First Amendment in action . That is how the marketplace of ideas works . We float our ideas in the marketplace , and we see which idea sells . Most everyone would agree that Sterling 's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas . Nevertheless , I reluctantly stand on Sterling 's side today . What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong . Start with illegal . In California , you ca n't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties . The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime . Once she gathered this information , someone leaked it ( she denies it was her ) -- and it went viral . This is where I think things went morally wrong . We all say things in private that we might not say in public . Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends . Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas . As our ideas develop , we consider whether to make them public . Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own ? The Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements , and he 's been nationally pilloried , too -- but he chose to make those statements to the world . He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him . But does Sterling ? Think about what his public character execution means . It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular , you now not only need to fear saying them in public , but you need 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 . Is n't it bad enough that the National Security Agency can spy on all of us ? How can we complain when we condone giving our closest friends the ability to do worse -- perhaps just to try and destroy us . In the novel `` 1984 , '' George Orwell wrote of the Telescreen , a device that beamed information into the home but that also spied on people constantly . Even if we were to stop the NSA in its tracks , would we still now live in a world where the Telescreen watches us ? Only instead of an oppressive government installing it in our apartments , it is conveniently placed in the hands of our dear friends . 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 . Do n't get me wrong . Sterling does seem to be a bad person . But sometimes the bad person is also the victim , and he stands in for us . As you applaud Stiviano for bringing the racist old man 's views to light , consider if it were you speaking to a woman friend in what you thought was a private conversation . Do we now live in a world where we can trust nobody ? Where there is no privacy ? In this story , there are two villains . Sterling represents the bad old days . But Stiviano 's behavior represents the horrifying future . Should n't we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man 's racist blathering ?
Donald Sterling 's : Donald Sterling 's the First Amendment rights were n't violated in scandal . Government is n't punishing speech , he says , but Sterling 's ideas failed in marketplace . He says problem was recording of Telescreen may have been illegal , leaking it morally wrong . Marc J. Randazza : This could happen to any of our private conversations 1984 and it 's chilling .