UFC sues New York in attempt to end ban

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AsxQYkZ5QKDwsdSCprPK76k9Eo14?slug=ki-iole_ufc_newyork_lawsuit_11511


by Kevin Iole


The parent company of the UFC, as well as a group of fans and several prominent fighters, have sued the New York attorney general and the Manhattan district attorney in a bid to lift a ban that outlaws mixed martial arts in New York State.

MMA has been illegal in New York since former Gov. George Pataki signed the Live Professional MMA Ban into law on Feb. 26, 1997. Zuffa has spent millions of dollars, so far unsuccessfully, lobbying the state legislature to have it overturned.

On Tuesday, Zuffa, along with prominent fighters such as UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones, UFC lightweight champion Frank Edgar, Gina Carano, Brian Stann and Matt Hamill, as well as a group of fans, filed suit in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York against state attorney general Eric Schneiderman and Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. challenging the law on constitutional grounds.

The suit alleges the law is “a blatant violation of the First Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution. It notes that officials at all levels of state government who supported the bill did so because of a dislike of the message that MMA sends.

The suit quotes one of the bill’s sponsors, state assemblyman Stephen Kaufman, as saying of MMA, “To glorify this type of ‘blood sport’ serves to increase the susceptibility of our youth to violence and also desensitizes those same impressionable minds to needless brutality.”

The suit also quotes a Pataki comment in the New York Times’ coverage of the bill signing ceremony in which he said, “To have someone who wins by using choke holds and kicking people while they are down is not someone our children should be looking to emulate.”

In a telephone interview with Yahoo! Sports, Zuffa attorney Barry Friedman, a law professor at NYU, said a law banning the sport because politicians believe it sends a bad message to children violates the First Amendment.

“They banned it because they thought MMA conveyed a message of violence,” Friedman said. “We don’t think that is the message that MMA conveys. I just spent the last few days with a lot of fighters and I spent a lot of time with them over the last few months. They will, as you can see in the complaint, talk about a lot of other values that are present [in MMA] like discipline, courage and respect for an opponent.

“But even if violence was the message, New York still can’t ban MMA because it doesn’t like that message.”

He noted the Supreme Court’s rejection of the California violent video game law. That law, which had not gone into effect, would have banned the sale of violent video games in the state. The high court overturned the video game ban in June by a 7-2 vote.

“As a means of assisting concerned parents it [the ban on violent video games] is seriously over-inclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a majority opinion in the Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association case.

Yahoo! Sports Radio: Mike Goldberg talks UFC on Fox]

Friedman said the state’s allegation that MMA is unsafe is also discriminatory.

Since the New York ban on MMA went into effect, there have been 37 fighters who have died in boxing matches in the U.S., including one in New York, according to the Journal of Combative Sport.

Only three fighters have died in MMA competition, but no UFC fighters have ever died or sustained a traumatic, life-altering injury, such as brain damage. American Douglas Dedge died of brain injuries suffered in an unsanctioned bout in Kiev, Ukraine, on March 16, 1998, which is before the current athletic-commission approved MMA ruleset, known as the “unified rules,” came into use. Sam Vasquez died from injuries sustained in an Oct. 20, 2007, bout in Houston, becoming the first fighter to die of injuries in a sanctioned bout. And Michael Kirkham died on June 28, 2010, from injuries suffered in a sanctioned bout in South Carolina on June 26, 2010.

Friedman said it is demonstrably untrue that MMA is unsafe.

“On safety, what they’re saying is, ‘You can’t do this because it’s not safe,’ ” Friedman said. “Any time the government says you can’t do something that involves your liberty, that is a 14th Amendment claim because it is denying people of their life or liberty without due process. And it’s also a discrimination claim.

“Why ban mixed martial arts as unsafe when the data shows it’s at least as safe, or safer than a lot of other sports, like boxing, football, ice hockey, Alpine skiing, equestrian sports? It turns out the most dangerous thing you can do is be a flyer in cheerleading. So you ask, what parts of the Constitution cover that, and it’s the equal protection clause.”

Erin Duggan, a spokeswoman for Vance, said Vance declined to comment on the lawsuit. Schneiderman did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

THis should be interesting.

weird one here

I think if you think about it, they call boxing the 'Sweet Science' and Horse racing 'The Sport of Kings', yet they have many more deaths and serious injuries in their sports than we do ours, yet they are both considered OK? Fuck that. 2 Cheerleaders die every year cheerleading and we have lost 3 ppl in 18 years and 2 of those killed themselves by not fully disclosing that they had bleeds on the brain. So what does that tell you?

i don't see how they can sue, by suing the UFC are effectively saying that the state of new york is acting illegally.

there's nothing going on here except the UFC stamping it's feet because new york won't do what they want. i hope it gets thrown out of court if only because dana white needs taking down a few pegs.

cheekynffc wrote:

i don't see how they can sue, by suing the UFC are effectively saying that the state of new york is acting illegally.

there's nothing going on here except the UFC stamping it's feet because new york won't do what they want. i hope it gets thrown out of court if only because dana white needs taking down a few pegs.

I dunno, reading the argument I would think that they have a pretty good case.

cheekynffc wrote:

i don't see how they can sue, by suing the UFC are effectively saying that the state of new york is acting illegally.[/b]

there's nothing going on here except the UFC stamping it's feet because new york won't do what they want. i hope it gets thrown out of court if only because dana white needs taking down a few pegs.

You think this is something irregular or new?

captain organic wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

i don't see how they can sue, by suing the UFC are effectively saying that the state of new york is acting illegally.

there's nothing going on here except the UFC stamping it's feet because new york won't do what they want. i hope it gets thrown out of court if only because dana white needs taking down a few pegs.

I dunno, reading the argument I would think that they have a pretty good case.

by the same criteria you could lobby for murder to be legal because banning it is discriminating against those who consider it a harmless pastime.

i'm not saying MMA shouldn't be legal in New York, i just have a problem with the UFC dictating what the law should be for it's own ends. dana white and the UFC don't care about the first amendment or peoples rights, this is about them making more money.

I agree with you Cheeky. They are a business. Their job is to make money. At least they are doing it being involved in something they obviously love. You probably think they should make no profit and give all the money to the fighters.

Andrew the Raider King wrote:

I agree with you Cheeky. They are a business. Their job is to make money. At least they are doing it being involved in something they obviously love. You probably think they should make no profit and give all the money to the fighters.

of course not but businesses should comply with the lawmakers, not the other way around.

if the UFC wins this case with what is a pretty ambiguous argument it could set a dangerous precident.

You want me to go along with lawmakers who sell their votes and influence to lobbyist, like a crack whore sells her body to a John? Please spare me...

cheekynffc wrote:

captain organic wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

i don't see how they can sue, by suing the UFC are effectively saying that the state of new york is acting illegally.

there's nothing going on here except the UFC stamping it's feet because new york won't do what they want. i hope it gets thrown out of court if only because dana white needs taking down a few pegs.

I dunno, reading the argument I would think that they have a pretty good case.

by the same criteria you could lobby for murder to be legal because banning it is discriminating against those who consider it a harmless pastime.

i'm not saying MMA shouldn't be legal in New York, i just have a problem with the UFC dictating what the law should be for it's own ends. dana white and the UFC don't care about the first amendment or peoples rights, this is about them making more money.

that is a straight awful analogy.

And the question is whether or not the NY law is constitutional. The UFC making money is of coarse their motivation, but it is irrelevant to the case.

captain organic wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

captain organic wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

i don't see how they can sue, by suing the UFC are effectively saying that the state of new york is acting illegally.

there's nothing going on here except the UFC stamping it's feet because new york won't do what they want. i hope it gets thrown out of court if only because dana white needs taking down a few pegs.

I dunno, reading the argument I would think that they have a pretty good case.

by the same criteria you could lobby for murder to be legal because banning it is discriminating against those who consider it a harmless pastime.

i'm not saying MMA shouldn't be legal in New York, i just have a problem with the UFC dictating what the law should be for it's own ends. dana white and the UFC don't care about the first amendment or peoples rights, this is about them making more money.

that is a straight awful analogy.

And the question is whether or not the NY law is constitutional. The UFC making money is of coarse their motivation, but it is irrelevant to the case.

nothing wrong with that analogy

whilst george patakis comments deserve criticism i can't see how the ban is an infringement of the first amendment as the writ alleges.