From the Octagon to the Courtroom: The Right to Fight, Subaltern, Cosmopolitanism, and Public Interest Litigation as a Tool for Mixed Martial Arts as a Community/Cultural Normative System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a new sport, mixed martial arts (“MMA”) has grown wildly in popularity. Yet MMA faces hurdles in legitimization and acceptance through legal, regulatory, and political means. While the MMA community has gone to great lengths to change its image, its internal rules, and regulatory framework—and while most American states and Canadian provinces now legally regulate MMA—certain states, such as New York, continue to ban live professional MMA events.\nMMA suffers from a lack of scholarship across many disciplines, including legal scholarship. While the available literature on MMA gradually develops, the minimal legal scholarship related to the matter has concentrated on the practical rather than the theoretical. How ever, the recent New York lawsuit—Jones v. Schneiderman—brought by members of the MMA community alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights, and naming the Attorney General of New York State as the defendant, provides an opening for a theory-based discussion of MMA. This paper’s focus will be on the MMA community, utilizing a theoretical framework provided by Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ notion of subaltern cosmopolitanism, and Brian Tamanaha’s classification of community/cultural normative system that, here, forms part of legal pluralism in the social arena within a state. The discussion will then turn to the strategies for social inclusion and increased legitimacy employed by the MMA community through public interest litigation versus lobbying efforts. Finally, this paper will suggest that success through public interest litigation must not be solely assessed at face value. Instead, public interest litigation facilitates a non-hegemonic use of hegemonic legal tools and structure that a subaltern community/cultural normative system may appropriate in order to represent its interests, its internal rules and norms, and the narratives of its members in a language of the dominant legal framework— that of constitutionality and First Amendment rights. I then propose that this dialogue operates as popular constitutionalism where a social movement, through popular resistance and engagement in a dialogue with the judiciary, may instigate a shift in constitutional interpretation and meaning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".