Tiger Woods: The Right to not Retain Offense

An interesting thing is happening in America. While the right to written free speech flourishes in cyberspace there is a narrowing zone for allowable verbal free speech in America. The latest example is the churning commentary regarding what Kelly Tilghman said during a broadcast of the Mercedes-Benz Championship tournament.

We need to back off. Read my lips. We need to power down outrage which is an emotional response, and weigh things and put them in their proper place. I fear we are allowing a Draconian response to free speech in America. Instead of acting like Americans we increasingly look like a nation of mindless cockroaches running from the dilute nerve gas contained in ordinary bug killers. Surely our brains are more developed than a bug’s brain? Let's return to a reasoning state regarding free speech.

Here is the way to look at the whole picture. When any person speaks do you observe a trend? If day after day someone issues controversial statements, then, well, maybe they are truly controversial? What has been Ms. Tilghman’s history? Has she married the word “lynch” to the word “black” in the past? Or is this a hole in one?

What about a slip of the tongue? Should we engage character assassination based on one event? If that is the case please burn me at the stake now. My own tongue has slipped on occasion and I have immediately wondered how that little muscle in my mouth took off all on its own without my brain in gear. Older and wiser is my only claim.

But back to dilute nerve gas.... here is the statement made by Ms. Tilghman in speaking of a way to allow new professional golfers a chance at the game when stacked up against Tiger Woods: “Lynch him in a back alley.” This was said with a laugh and most likely in a somewhat unthinking state.

Here is VX gas. Did you know that one drop of VX on the skin can kill you?

“All blacks deserve to be lynched.”

In my mind for any statement to cross over into hateful or racist speech it has to meet strong criteria. First and foremost the statement has to be acidic enough to cause a weak-minded unstable individual to pull the trigger on someone else. Ms. Tilghman’s sentence does not fall in that category. There appears to be no hidden agenda. If there was malice only she knows the answer to that one and her heart needs to deal with it. Should she be punished professionally? Why?

This was not VX. This was dilute and it struck a nerve. Can we move along, Americans?
Let's follow the example set by Tiger Woods. The right to free speech has to embrace the right to not be offended. It appears Mr. Woods has it figured out.

Tammy Swofford
tammyswofford@yahoo.com