Of Mark Cuban, Twitter, and the Concept of “Private Communication” – Free Line 3/31/09
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has been fined $25,000 by the NBA after using Twitter to complain about league officiating. “Just found out [that I] got fined $25K by [the] NBA,” the always opinionated Cuban wrote/Tweeted Monday. “Nice … [We] can’t say that no one makes money from Twitter now. The NBA does.”
As many sports fans are aware, this isn’t the first time that he has used modern technology to question the competency of the league. During the January 13th meeting between the Mavericks and the Denver Nuggets, he reportedly saw Nuggets shooting guard J.R. Smith elbow opposing small forward Antoine Wright in the head. Feeling that the refs blew the call, the ever present Cuban took it upon himself to personally confront Smith about the incident. He then wrote a sarcastic letter of apology to the player, which was then immediately posted on his blog. The incident earned the Mavericks’ owner a $25,000 fine and a personal condemnation from NBA commissioner David Stern, a noted critic of Cuban’s off-the-court antics.
Needless to say, the situation has gotten people talking. Interestingly, the conversations have more to do with the nature of microblogging and social networking than the so-called “wacky antics” of Mark Cuban. According to some, such as Denver Post columnist and ESPN personality Woody Paige, using modern technology to vent your frustrations is no different than using a telephone to tell a friend about an annoying coworker. “[Social media applications such as Twitter and Facebook] don’t count,” said Paige on the ESPN program Around the Horn. “You’re just trying to have a conversation with somebody. It just doesn’t count.” CNET columnist Chris Matyszczyk tends to agree with Paige, saying that Cuban was merely doing what he does best — speaking his mind to those who will listen. As far as he is concerned, the NBA is trying to “censor him” in order to hide the fact that he is “more intelligent than most of its members.”
Not everyone shares that point of view, however. Many writers, including featured AOL Fanhouse columnist and fellow ESPN personality Jay Mariotti, feel that Cuban has crossed the proverbial line yet again. “It was for public consumption,” said Mariotti. “You can assume that he really didn’t mean it or that he wasn’t sending it to the NBA. But once it’s on Twitter, it’s out there for the masses [to read]. He deserved to be fined.” These sentiments echo those of noted sportscaster Tony Kornheiser, who believes that using social media applications to “vent” is no different than writing an op-ed column for a traditional newspaper. According to Kornheiser, the writer is using an established forum to air his or her views. If the writer says something controversial, then he or she should be held responsible. The “newness” of that forum should not be taken into account, as it still a public forum.
And where does Mark Cuban stand on all of this? He blames the media. In a post on his blog, Cuban questions the legality of the original ESPN report, suggesting that the sports giant broke international copyright law by reprinting his Tweets without permission. “I Tweeted to the people who follow me. While I never asked that they not distribute it to other tweeters, I did not give anyone permission to republish my Tweets in a commercial newspaper, magazine or website.” He goes on to ponder the legal ramifications of the “stolen” Tweets and whether or not he should have expected them to remain private in the first place.
All in all, the entire Cuban/Twitter incident clearly illustrates the complexities of web 2.0-based communication. In many ways, these concerns mirror those brought about by the so-called “Napster fiasco” of ten years ago. As with Twitter and MySpace now, Napster was delivering an intellectual product in a way never before seen. When musicians such as Metallica and Dr. Dre questioned the new system, pundits initially focused more on the concept of “intellectual property rights” than on the fact that several million people were pirating copyrighted music. Although it might seem pointless now, it was a conversation that simply had to happen. After all, it was impossible to go after a person for violating “intellectual property rights” when no one knew exactly what those “rights” truly were. We are going through the same exact scenario now, only with hipper, more modern terminology. Once everything is straightened out, stories such as this will be nothing but a blip on the radar screen. In the meantime, however, we here at the Free Line suggest that you watch what you say online. The last thing any of us need to deal with is a $25,000 fine from David Stern.











