I just read the ENTIRE lawsuit brought by Zuffa against the state of New York. Let me say in advance that I’m not a lawyer or legal expert. I’m interested in the law, and I pay attention to news stories dealing with the law, but I don’t have any actual education or training where the law is concerned.
The main basis of Zuffa’s complaint is that the ban restricts the freedom of expression of their fighters and fans. They devote almost the entire complaint to this. I respect the effort, but I think this is highly subjective, and not likely to sway a federal judge. I don’t know of any precedent for a professional competition to be considered a form of protected expression. They make a lot of good arguments, but none of them really sell me. Just because you can call something “martial arts” doesn’t actually make it an art, and even if it is an art, is it the type of art that should be protected by the first amendment? By the same logic, couldn’t we start calling pickpocketing a “thieving art” and strike down laws against pickpocketing as unconstitutional? I feel like this argument is just weak.
Another aspect of Zuffa’s complaint that gives me worry is that nearly every specific point they make can be remedied without legalizing MMA. They complain that the current ban is vague. They are trying to get a judge to strike down the ban entirely based on the lack of specificity or confusion the ban creates. The legislature would still be able to create a new ban that was more specific and avoided the aspects that Zuffa pointed out. A more specific ban could possibly be even worse, banning MMA training or even specific martial arts that are currently legal. If Zuffa’s argument is that karate is no worse than MMA, and the legislature still believes that MMA should be banned, why not ban karate as well? I don’t know how likely this is, probably not likely, but the fact that this conclusion can be easily reached doesn’t bode well for their case as a whole.
Zuffa has some more specific grievances with the law, they say that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the constitution, and the Commerce Clause dealing with interstate commerce. Even if these grievances are determined to be valid, the court’s decision doesn’t automatically legalize MMA. If they offer equal protection, they could instead interpret that to mean that boxing or martial arts should be illegal. If it violates the interstate commerce clause, it could mean that any sort of MMA promotion, advertisement, transmission of events, sales of DVDs, or any number of things could become illegal under New York law. Again, I think this is highly unlikely, but it doesn’t help Zuffa’s case that you could draw these conclusions. Also, these grievances are secondary to Zuffa’s argument that the ban violates their fighters’ First Amendment rights, which tells me they have more faith in that argument than the arguments dealing with commerce and equal protection.
I think a judge will dismiss this as an attempt at an organization to change a law so that it may profit, which it is. Zuffa’s argument is no less vague than the law it opposes. That’s not to say that I don’t want MMA to be legal in New York. I absolutely do. I just believe that the place for it to happen will ultimately be in the legislature, not the courtroom. If Zuffa is able to pull this off, that would be fantastic. I’d be on the next bus up to New York to see a title fight at MSG. I just don’t see it happening. This seems more like a PR move on their end, and a way to get their grievances into the public record.
Like I said before, I’m not a legal expert. This is just my opinion based on what I’ve read. I expect some actual lawyers with experience in this type of law to weigh in during the week, that should give us some more perspective. Here is the link to the full text of the complaint if anybody else is up to reading it:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/72799769
Asking a judge to consider the legality of a law does not mean that, if the judge should concur, all other previously unrelated parties would then be included. That isn’t how it works. The judge can’t just say “Oh, wow, we should add karate and boxing and MMA PPVs to this as well,” because none of those things are included in the ban, and a judge can’t write legislation. All the judge can do is say “Yes, this is constitutional,” or “No, this isn’t constitutional.”
And yes, if the judge says the ban is illegal, and Zuffa wins the lawsuit, MMA would then be legal. There wouldn’t be a need for another hearing, they could do a PPV outside the courthouse if they wanted. (UFC 150: Brawl at City Hall!)
Asking to be protected under due process and equal protection doesn’t mean that Zuffa’s asking to make a case for itself, it means that they’re saying the government has to make a better case to ban them. And if the judge agrees, then the current ban is lifted, and if the government wants to have another go, so be it, but they’ll have to start from scratch, and in the meantime we’ll have some pretty awesome cards in NY. Hopefully one right in Albany!
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know how much of what Zuffa says in their lawsuit will hold water, but I can tell you that they probably don’t have to make much of a case anyway. Just getting the judge to consider the legality of the ban should be enough, since it’s not constitutionally legal to ban something just because it’s violent or sends a bad message. That’s why, despite dozens of attempts to ban certain titles, video games are still legal in the US.
The government also said MMA is unsafe, and on that count Zuffa has the facts on its side. So, really, if those are the only two reasons New York could come up with to ban MMA, the courts probably will repeal it.
I’m just glad they’re finally doing this. If they had done this five years ago, we’d already be going to shows.
I wasn’t trying to say that a judge would ban karate or something, I’m just saying that the legislature is still within rights to do that if they want to. And they’re within rights to ban MMA.
I just don’t see a judge lifting the ban because some elements of it aren’t specific. Obviously the arguments have to play out in court, but the argument as written didn’t totally convince me. I’m still waiting for some actual legal experts to weigh in.
The legislature would have to write a separate bill for other martial arts if they wanted to ban them. There’s no slippery slope here. Besides, nobody wants to ban martial arts, and nobody’s looking to ban MMA DVD or PPV distribution. All anyone wanted to do was ban MMA from coming to the state, and back in the late 90s, New York wasn’t the only state banning it.
And I don’t believe they’re within their rights to ban MMA. I don’t see how you come to the conclusion they are based on the law. You can’t ban something for being violent or promoting violence. There is precedent in the courts upholding the rights of game makers, musicians, even other sports, of doing their thing in front of audiences. The Zuffa lawsuit even cites a recent California case.
The only reason this law is even on the books is because nobody’s taken it in front of the courts before. Now that Zuffa’s about to, there shouldn’t be an issue getting it repealed. I don’t know what sort of argument would convince you, but ultimately that’s unimportant, because the law is unconstitutional.
And for the record, the lawsuit isn’t based on the law’s vagueness. I don’t know why you keep mentioning that. The lawsuit is arguing that the banning of their sport is unconstitutional, not that the law isn’t specific enough. I’m sure that the vagueness of some of the law’s elements is mentioned in the suit, but that’s not the basis of their case. They also mention the paradox of amateur MMA fights being legal, as well as MMA training in gyms, within the state, but that’s not what they’re hanging their hat on. It’s just part of the argument.
Part of the lawsuit is based on its vagueness. That goes into the due process and equal protection parts, although that isn’t their entire argument. They spend a large part of their argument making the case that it is too vague.
Clearly they are trying to prove that MMA is a form of expression that should be protected under the first amendment. That is their biggest argument. Do you see that succeeding? I don’t.
Oh, check this out:
http://siriusxmsports.posterous.com/siriusxm-fight-club-justin-klein
Oh, and I just remembered that the ban PERMITS AMATEUR MMA FIGHTS IN NEW YORK.
Barring any nonsense like a corrupt judge, this ban is dunzo.