::: FistedAway today welcomes a guest post from Elliott, editor of the rather lovely Futfanatico :::
By all accounts, the recent MLS cup was a success as both a soccer match and a sporting event in North America. However, the suckerpunch goal that led to Colorado’s victory pales in comparison to a recent menace to First Amendment expression: an anti-defamation lawsuit against the NYTimes. Why? Allow me to pug in the details.
The game’s MVP, American striker Conor Casey, will not be winning any beauty awards lately. Tall, broad-shouldered, and known for a rough-and-tumble style of play, his game tying goal scored from a seated position exemplified a grit associated with now retired Brian McBride and the American game. So it was unsurprising that the NYTimes referred to Conor as “pugnacious.” But should it be?
Within one day of publication, the anti-Pug defamation league filed suit, claiming that the comparison was slanderous to pugs of all continents. The owner for the lead plaintiff in the case, Barkafellah A. Pugney, emphasized that Casey’s face was more befitting of a mugshot, not a pugshot. The attorneys made clear that, in addition to the million dollar damages, the suit served a broader purpose – halt the negative media stereotypes of pugs. “Pugs do not recklessly slide in on central defenders from behind. Though if they did it would be adorable, yesh it would! Rather, we are a kindly, puggable breed.”
Casey was unavailable for comment, but the NYTimes board has promised to stand by their journalist. The director decried the suit as a a mere “puglicity stunt” and pledged to fight tooth-and-nail. Despite serious hurdles to justice for the four legged plaintiffs, including standing, their attorney has vowed to send a message that their concerns will not be conveniently “swept under the pug”. With tears in his eyes the barrister appealed to justice, universal rights and unity in stamping terms and comparisons that are utterly repugnant.
:: Elliott blogs about soccer at Futfanatico.com ::