Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Lynching Tiger Redux

As the story has enlarged nationally, the Golf Channel announced yesterday that it would suspend Kelly Tilghman for two weeks in connection with her casual statement that the only hope for young up and coming professional golfers to compete with the great Tiger Woods would be to "lynch [him] in a back alley."

The Golf Channel's official statement reads:

"While we believe that Kelly's choice of words was inadvertent and that she did not intend them in an offensive manner, the words were hurtful and grossly inappropriate,'' Golf Channel said in its statement. "Consequently, we have decided to suspend Kelly for two weeks, effective immediately.''
The national debate on this subject of "hurtful" and "grossly inappropriate" words (i.e. "lynch") has become vitriolic. Some argue that political correctness has run amok and if the individual saying the words meant no ill will, then let it go. Others contend that if the target (i.e. Tiger Woods) is not offended, then no harm done. Still others argue that the ignorant use of the word "lynch" in connection with an African American in the United States is deeply offensive and a punishable, if not fireable, offense.

The Golf Channel has chosen for now that Tilghman's choice of words in this context is a punishable offense.


"The Golf Channel has chosen for now that Tilghman's choice of words in this context is a punishable offense."

No, it means The Golf Channel has no desire for this meaningless story to have any more legs, and it doesn't want the scam artists Sharpton, Jackson, and/or the PC Police to shake them down any further than Sharpton already has.

I'm betting Sharpton hasn't satisfied his starvation for attention yet and won't let the non-issue die. Unless of course, there was a back channel deal that Sharpton would go away it if TGC suspended Tilghman.

If TGC truly thought this was a punishable offense, they would've suspended her immediately.

Blogger Tom Blogical -- 1/10/2008 9:54 AM  

Just to be clear, I wholeheartedly agree that she should be accountable for what she says on the air, and I think the appropriate response from her was an apology. It was a terrible choice of words. However, to compare this to the Imus situation is equivalent to making a mountain out of a mole hill.

The apology, and Woods' acceptance, should be good enough.

When I think of incidents like this, I use the Michael Richards incident as a comparison. There is a world of difference between what he said and what his intention was, and what Tilghman said and what her intention was.

Blogger Tom Blogical -- 1/10/2008 10:25 AM  

Post a Comment