|
Legal Beagles
|
|
Faking It Can Be Fun, Too
A full-text search on United States Supreme Court decisions fails to reveal any commentary regarding "professional wrestling." However, a number of other courts have made pronouncements about professional wrestling as "entertainment." The "entertainment" nature of professional wrestling has been relevant to claims brought under the federal antitrust laws, as well as claims regarding First Amendment rights. In short, professional wrestling, like the NFL, does not benefit from the hallowed baseball exemption from the antitrust statutes. However, it does constitute a form of protected Free Speech. _See,_ _e.g.,_ _Murdock v. City of Jacksonville, Florida,_ 361 F. Supp. 1083 (M.D. Fla. 1973) (finding that independent wrestling promotor had failed to survive summary judgment motion on claim that federation "blackballing" recalcitrant wrestlers violated Sherman Act); _Titan Sports, Inc. v. State Athletic Control Board,_ 11 N.J. Tax. 259 (1990) (finding professional wrestling productions to be a form of First Amendment-protected speech); _SEG Sports Corp. v. Patterson,_ Civ. Act. No. 97-712, 1998 WL 230993 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 1998). Therefore, although the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that major league baseball is, for some inexplicable reason, sacrosanct against the Sherman Act, _Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S. Ct. 465 (1922); _Toolson v. New York Yankees,_ 346 U.S. 356, 74 S.Ct. 78 (1953); _Flood v. Kuhn,_ 407 U.S. 258, 92 S.Ct. 2099 (1972), it doesn't seem to have expressed any opinion about professional wrestling. (And professional football found itself completely unappreciated. _Radovich v. National Football League,_ 352 U.S. 445, 77 S.Ct. 390 (1957)).
|
|
References:
Version 0.4, last updated: Wed Aug 30 9:11:34 US/Central 2000 |
|
Any proceeds (net proceeds from merchandise sales) from TAFKAC solely
benefit The Chuck Reed Fund.
Copyright Information http://tafkac.org/ |