First Amendment at Risk: Was Shiloh Hendrix Actually Convicted of “Hate Speech” — in America?

Here’s something many Americans don’t know: There is no category in American law such as “hate speech.” It doesn’t exist. Some people nonetheless behave as if it does — including many who sit on legal benches and juries.

Some would say this is the reality, too, with a Minnesota court case that has gone viral.

Shiloh Hendrix, a 37-year-old former resident of Rochester, Minnesota, was convicted Thursday of disorderly conduct. At issue was an incident last year that was captured on video by a Somali bystander. Hendrix was fined $1,000 and assigned 200 hours of community service; she also received a stayed 90-day jail sentence. Critics, however, are crying foul.

Hendrix would never have been convicted, they assert, if not for her race and her words.

The incident in question occurred at Rochester’s Soldiers Memorial Field Park on April 28, 2025. An eight-year-old Somali boy reportedly stole a packet of applesauce from Hendrix’s bag. She then confronted him and, among other things, called him the n-word.

While Hendrix’s behavior is hardly praiseworthy, note that she was not convicted of disorderly conduct with the child. Rather, she was convicted of that charge relating to the Somali bystander who confronted her, videoed her, and escalated matters. It is clear to many, too, that this wouldn’t have gone to court if, instead of a racial epithet, Hendrix had “merely” disgorged the vulgarity so common today. This is why it’s a First Amendment case.

Moreover, Hendrix’s defense lawyer, Brian Karalus, alleged misconduct on the part of the judge in the case, Christa M. Daily. He said he had to fight the judge along with the prosecutor, calling the trial a “circus.” Karalus is appealing the case.

Two-tiered “Justice”?

Below is the 48-second video (containing some vulgarity), recorded by one Sharmake Omar, that reportedly was instrumental in Hendrix’s conviction.

Now, question: Was Hendrix the instigator in the above interaction? She was more vulgar, but was she any more disorderly than Omar was? She was responding, not initiating.

To be clear, there are no good guys in this story, inclusive of Judge Daily. Furthermore, the racial epithet isn’t even the main issue. In fact, as one X commenter put it, making a point with humor:

Maybe if she [Hendrix] sung it, she could’ve recorded the foul language section and had a number one pop song since the only requirement in today’s music industry is for you to use foul language in your songs.

For sure, just imagine you had a dollar for every time a famous rapper uttered the n-word. You’d be as rich as, well, a famous rapper.

Quite hypocritically, virtually all of society today has normalized vulgarity; it permeates our entertainment. What’s more, taking God’s name in vain is done reflexively.

Yet we’re supposed to act all indignant — value-signaling to the hilt — over a racial epithet? Really?

Does this reflect moral balance?

This relates to the no-good-guys point. Hendrix had a toddler on her arm in the above video. How is she molding him, what example is she setting, when displaying the middle finger and using vulgarity?

For that matter, Omar also used a curse word in front of the child.

Then there was the eight-year-old Somali thief. It was fine for Hendrix to confront him. It wasn’t fine for her to use bad language and act like a lowlife. There was a time when adults understood they were always “on call” when around children. “Little pitchers have big ears,” they would say. They knew they had to act virtuously around kids. Today, adults are kids, albeit overgrown.

Also Virtuous: Upholding Just Law

Yet two imperatives can exist simultaneously; we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And the reality is that Hendrix’s conviction should, it appears, be overturned. As commentator Matt Walsh put it:

And defense attorney Karalus was incredulous. Answering reporters’ questions, he called the trial “very bizarre” and said that “the judge ought to be ashamed of herself.” (Video below. Note: brief vulgarity toward the end.)

To reiterate, the law appears to have been trumped here by our societal hang-ups. That is, the judge and jury didn’t like Hendrix or her racial-epithet use. So they did an end run around the First Amendment by pounding the square peg of bad language into the round hole of disorderly conduct. It has all the earmarks of a de facto hate-speech conviction.

This hang-up is reflected in the media, too, not surprisingly. Two illustrative headlines:

• Jury splits the verdicts in racial slur video case.
• Woman found guilty in Rochester racial slur case.

Note that they didn’t call it a “First Amendment” case.

Realize here, too, that hate-speech laws are the norm in most Western countries. And the problem is that prohibited isn’t just “hateful speech.” Rather, in Germany, Canada, and elsewhere people are punished for expressing un-woke opinions. In Britain alone, 12,000 citizens are arrested yearly for internet posts the government dislikes. But we don’t have hate-speech laws in the United States. Moreover, almost as important is this:

We mustn’t pretend as if we do.

Walking and Chewing Gum

Returning to vulgarity, mentioning it is often met with eye rolling. Why, after I editorialized against it years ago, an email respondent complained, “We’re not all Little Lord Fauntleroys” out here. But before putting on my little hat and little silk sash and little knickerbockers, I’ll leave you with this. On August 3, 1776, George Washington, the Father of our Nation, issued the following order:

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

Washington and the other Founders emphasized virtue — and they also gave us the First Amendment. And they’d rightly be aghast at Hendrix, Judge Daily, and, really, our entire culture. Liberty and virtue are the conjoined twins of republican success; shedding one means losing both.