Shiloh Hendrix took the bait — prosecutors took it too far



I don’t love Shiloh Hendrix as a First Amendment martyr. Then again, most First Amendment martyrs aren’t especially lovable.

Maybe Hendrix is a great gal in person. I don’t know her. But on April 28, 2025, she was at Roy Sutherland Playground in Rochester, Minnesota, with her toddler when an 8-year-old black boy allegedly took an applesauce pouch from her diaper bag. Hendrix chased him, retrieved the pouch, and, according to witnesses, repeatedly called him the Very Worst Word in American English™.

A free country doesn’t need to convert every ugly human encounter into a criminal proceeding.

The row got the attention of Sharmake Omar, a Somali immigrant who began recording her on his phone. Hendrix told him it was “none of [his] f**king business” and walked away. Omar challenged her to say the word again.

Hendrix obliged.

“F**k you, n*****. N*****, n*****, n*****.”

Omar posted the video online, sans asterisks. Fifteen months later, an Olmsted County jury acquitted Hendrix of disorderly conduct toward the child — and convicted her of disorderly conduct toward Omar.

Say what?

For good or ill, Hendrix has now joined some august company: Eugene V. Debs, Charles Schenck, H.L. Mencken, Upton Sinclair, Henry Miller, Clarence Brandenburg.

The First Amendment has always had lousy taste in clients. Still, Hendrix hardly belongs in that group. Schenck went to prison for distributing anti-draft leaflets with the Bill of Rights printed on one side. Sinclair was arrested for reading the First Amendment aloud. Brandenburg, a Klansman, gave us one of the great protections for political advocacy.

Hendrix doesn’t even rise to the level of “F**k the Draft.” She got angry in a park, took the bait, and said an ugly word over and over.

Should she have exercised more self-control? Probably. But since when did criminal law punish bad manners?

Which brings me to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

The 1942 Supreme Court case gave us “fighting words”: face-to-face insults punishable when likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace and forming “no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”

RELATED: Claude shows the future: No AI for dissenters

SDI Productions/iStock/Getty Images

Libertarians mostly hate Chaplinsky. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression calls the doctrine “quaint” and notes that the Supreme Court has not upheld a fighting-words conviction in 80 years.

True enough. Give government power to punish offensive speech, and it will abuse it. That’s why I’m against hate-speech laws. But that does not require pretending every noise made by a human mouth is an “argument” worthy of First Amendment protection.

Hadley Arkes, the constitutional scholar who has influenced my thinking for decades, suggests an admirably simple test:

The soundness of the test can be confirmed again instantly whenever we give a panel of people this set of words and ask if they can identify the terms clearly established as terms of insult, as opposed to words that may be on the borderline of insult, or perhaps even terms of approval and commendation: 1) kike, 2) wop, 3) n*****, 4) urologist, 5) meter maid, 6) saint. People will not show the slightest puzzlement here in fixing on the words used as insulting or "fighting words."

Exactly. Nobody wonders whether “urologist” is the slur. A blind man could see the difference.

“F**k you, n*****” directed at a black man advances no proposition about race. It is an epithet. Threats, extortion, perjury, provocation — all are words, and all can be actionable.

I made a related argument 16 years ago in Snyder v. Phelps. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church had every right to preach that America was damned. I argued that they did not have the right to commandeer a dead Marine’s funeral. Mencken called the boundary “the last limits of the endurable.”

So two cheers for Chaplinsky.

But that’s a long way from concluding that Hendrix committed a punishable offense.

She was carrying her child and walking away. Omar was recording and baiting her. He practically announced the consequence: The internet was going to see this. It did. Hendrix was identified, doxxed, and condemned by millions.

Omar had counter speech. He had a camera. He had the internet. He won.

Why did the state need to pile on?

Nothing about the encounter suggested an “imminent breach of the peace.” Yet the jury convicted Hendrix for insulting Omar while acquitting her over the nastier conduct alleged toward the 8-year-old.

RELATED: Two Americas, under Fauci, with liberty and justice for none

Jun/iStock/Getty Images

Hendrix’s attorney, Brian Karalus, says the judge excluded exculpatory evidence and mishandled witness disclosures. He called the proceeding a “fraud” and a “circus” and has filed an appeal. Maybe the appellate court says he is wrong, but I hope he wins.

Chaplinsky does not give prosecutors a permission slip. The state still must prove that these words, in this context, were likely to provoke a fight in the moment.

That’s what angers me about this case. It was needless.

Hendrix behaved badly. She said something vicious to a little kid and allowed herself to be provoked when she should have kept walking.

At the same time: So what? A free country doesn’t need to convert every ugly human encounter into a criminal proceeding.

Again, two cheers for Chaplinsky and the “fighting words” doctrine. It’s good law. We should keep it and use it — sparingly. But thank God for every last constitutional protection Shiloh Hendrix has coming to her.

Trump claims 'incompetent' Minnesota responsible for cyberattacks, not Iran



Officials say they are investigating cyberattacks against municipal systems in Minnesota for possible links to Iranian groups.

Minnesota officials previously revealed that state water operations were targeted by cyberattacks on Sunday and Monday.

'I don't think there was an Iranian cyberattack. I think Minnesota ought to get its act together.'

On Thursday, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency warned water and wastewater operators that they could be similarly attacked.

CISA said there was a significant increase in the attacks on "programmable logic controllers" involving outside actors changing passwords and locking out the operators. The agency urged operators to remove the PLCs and other operational technology from the internet as soon as possible.

"This activity has resulted in boil water notices and sustained manual operations," CISA said.

The CISA warning did not mention Iran or Minnesota, but U.S. officials told ABC News that investigators were trying to determine if the hostile regime was responsible for the cyberattacks.

The preliminary suspicion was first reported by the New York Times.

CISA recommended even the most rudimentary of digital security practices, including enabling password protections and changing default passwords.

President Donald Trump, when asked about the possibility of the attacks coming from Iran, blamed Minnesotan officials instead.

"I don't think so. I think that Minnesota is behind it," the president said to reporters. "You know who is behind it? Minnesota. Because they're grossly incompetent. I don't think there was an Iranian cyberattack. I think Minnesota ought to get its act together."

He went on to say there would be more revelations about corruption in Minnesota coming from his administration.

RELATED: New study: One Chinese cyberattack could make your taps run dry

"Cyberattacks against critical infrastructure require a coordinated, whole-of-government response," said John Israel, Minnesota's chief information security officer, in a statement.

"This incident demonstrates why Minnesota has invested in strong cybersecurity capabilities and partnerships" he added. "Our response worked as intended, enabling agencies at every level of government to rapidly coordinate, contain the incident, and help prevent more serious impacts to critical services."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Sexually harassing the chief? Self-admitted illegal alien Democrat mayor embroiled in new scandal



The Democrat mayor of St. Paul who once confessed on the floor of the Minnesota House that she is "an illegal in this country" now finds herself at the center of an entirely new controversy.

In June 2025, then-state Rep. Kaohly Her (DFL) told her colleagues that her father got her family into America from Laos by falsifying immigration paperwork. A few months later, Her — now a U.S. citizen and a vociferous critic of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — was elected mayor of St. Paul.

'The mayor has deep respect for city employees.'

Like her father, Her also apparently has a strained relationship with the law — or at least with law enforcement.

The City of Saint Paul has hired Resolute Law, an outside law firm, to investigate Mayor Her over allegations of sexual harassment against St. Paul Police Chief Axel Henry and other city employees, reported the Minnesota Star Tribune.

Chris Madel, the attorney who is representing Chief Henry, noted in an April 1 letter to City Attorney Irene Kao that the police chief had decided to designate himself as a formal complainant against the Democrat mayor "for illegal employment practices against City employees, including himself."

The letter accuses Her of using "one or more mobile phones to communicate inappropriate, and, indeed, unlawful text messages" to city employees, including an alleged message — accompanying an image of a police officer's face superimposed on a baby's body — about giving someone "a good weinering."

Her's office did not immediately respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

RELATED: Tim Walz gets TORCHED over dolls with 'swappable genitals' meant for kids as young as 4: Report

Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Madel demanded that the city take "all steps necessary to perform a full filesystem extraction" of each of Her's mobile phones, which would provide investigators with access to her text messages, photos, videos, and emails.

Madel said that Henry had made the decision "after becoming aware that the Mayor's conduct has extended beyond isolated incidents and has included sexual harassment of subordinate City employees, including members of the Saint Paul Police Department. Recognizing both the seriousness of that misconduct and the vulnerability of those directly affected, he is concerned that, absent a formal complaint, the behavior will continue unchecked and may expose others to retaliation for speaking out."

Henry's attorney told Alpha News that the chief is attempting to hold the leftist mayor accountable "because it's the right thing to do. And he just helped crack a triple homicide in under four hours — that’s the work he’s focused on right now: keeping citizens safe."

A spokeswoman for the foreign-born mayor's office told KSTP-TV, "To protect confidentiality and the integrity of the process, the City will not comment on an active investigation. The mayor has deep respect for city employees and regrets any unintended impact her actions may have had."

While Her is now supposedly remorseful, this may not be her first rodeo.

Shirly Yang, who apparently served with Her for years on the board of the National Kidney Foundation in the Gopher State, recently sought a restraining order against Her for alleged intimidation and harassment. According to Yang, whose petition was ultimately denied by a Ramsey County court referee in January, the mayor allegedly inundated her with inappropriate messages, frequently of a sexually explicit and intrusive nature.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Did Minnesota just criminalize the N-word? Whitlock sounds free-speech alarm over white woman’s conviction



The case of Shiloh Hendrix has become one of the most polarizing free-speech controversies in the country after Hendrix, a Minnesota woman, went viral after using the N-word during a confrontation at a Rochester playground.

Now, Hendrix has been found guilty on one count of disorderly conduct related to her interaction with the man who recorded the incident.

While BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock doesn’t condone Hendrix’s actions, he doesn’t like what this means for free speech — and he doesn’t believe that a woman should be charged for using a word that the black community uses all the time.

“A woman in Minnesota got into a screaming argument with a grown man in a public park. She said an ugly, sinful word, and yesterday the state of Minnesota made her a criminal for it,” Whitlock explains, adding, “I’m about to tell you why she is not the one you should be afraid of. The government is.”


While activists and even the attorney general of Minnesota wanted to charge Hendrix with a hate crime, Whitlock points out they couldn’t get a hate crime.

“Because in the United States, there is no criminal law against hateful speech,” he says, noting that instead, they went for disorderly conduct.

“The only count they convicted her on was the argument with the grown man who filmed her. Sentence, 90 days, suspended, a fine, community service, no cell, no bars. They didn’t punish her for what she said to a boy. They punished her for arguing with a man,” he explains.

“They didn’t need to jail her. They needed to label her. They needed a word in an argument between two adults to become a crime,” he adds.

However, the word she’s being punished for using is a word that’s repeated all the time in the black community.

“Here’s the lie the rappers and mainstream media sell you,” Whitlock says. “That the word changes based on who’s holding it. That in a bigot’s mouth, it’s a weapon, but in a rapper’s mouth, it’s culture. That the color of a man’s skin launders that word clean.”

“I have never believed that. Not once. It’s a lie. The word is the word. It’s poison coming out of a racist in a park. And it’s the same poison coming out of a stage in front of 20,000 kids who chant it all the way home,” he continues.

“Melanin does not sanctify it. A beat behind it does not baptize it. If it’s a sin, and it is, then it’s a sin in every mouth,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Tim Walz gets TORCHED over dolls with 'swappable genitals' meant for kids as young as 4: Report



The website for the MyGender Dolls recommends that the "award-winning" and "culturally attuned" dolls with supposedly removable genitals be given to children between 4 and 10 years old.

According to the New York Post, the transgender-identifying dolls will be provided to teachers for the next school year and were developed at the University of Minnesota Medical School, which receives taxpayer funding.

'It's time to put everyone involved where they belong ... behind bars.'

The dolls have already been used at the medical school's Institute for Sexual and Gender Health to encourage children to "talk about gender and bodies."

"We were able to explore and brainstorm not just what our bodies are able to do now but what we want our bodies to do and look like in the future," Adjunct Assistant Professor Elizabeth Panetta said.

The report of the dolls with "swappable genitals" led to an onslaught of vitriol against Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

"This is sick. It is a complete betrayal of Minnesota parents, students and taxpayers — and it shows just how extreme Tim Walz and [Democratic Sen.] Amy Klobuchar have become," Minnesota GOP Chairman Alex Plechash responded.

"Four-year-olds should be learning their letters and numbers — not being encouraged to pull genitalia off dolls and ‘explore’ changing their bodies," he added.

"This is not education. It is taxpayer-funded indoctrination," he continued.

The GOP chided Walz by pointing out that fewer than half of students in Minnesota meet either math or reading standards while Democrats seek to indoctrinate them into the transgender agenda.

Others online were similarly incensed.

"It's time to put everyone involved where they belong ... behind bars," former Major League Baseball pitcher John Rocker replied.

"These are the most disgraceful things I have ever seen. Anyone gives one of my kids one of those dolls they better have their prayers said and their plot picked. Hell hath no fury when someone messes with one of my kids, period!" one critic responded.

"This is getting beyond dystopian ... you are going to end up with children who think their genitals are meant to detach and THAT is REALLY f**king dangerous!" another detractor replied.

"Disgusting — I'd have my kids right out of there before an adult asked my 4yo to play with a dolls [sic] privates," another critic said.

RELATED: Tim Walz pardons illegal alien despite HORRIFIC child sex crimes — which may shield him from deportation

A spokesperson for the university denied that any public funds were used to develop the trans dolls, but when pressed about the funding, the spokesperson told the Post to file a Freedom of Information Act request.

Tim Walz's office also did not respond to a comment request from the Post.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Somali Man Who Filmed Shiloh Hendrix Had Rape Charges Dropped ‘In Interest Of Justice’

The charges were dropped about one month before Omar filmed the TikTok video of Hendrix

Feeding Our Future scammer CRIES in court before being sentenced for bribing juror with $120,000



The massive fraud scam in Minnesota's Feeding Our Future nonprofit continues to grow after one convicted fraudster has been sentenced to an additional decade in prison for bribing a juror.

Abdiaziz Shafii Farah pleaded guilty to participating in the attempted scheme to bribe a juror with $120,000 in order to secure an acquittal.

'Farah and his co-defendants participated in an unprecedented attack on the justice system.'

Four others were implicated in the bribery scheme that was revealed in June 2024.

A woman appearing to be Somali dropped off the money bag with a family member of the juror, as previously reported by Blaze News.

"This is for juror 52," an alleged note on the bag read. "Tell her there will be another bag for her if she votes to acquit."

The juror called the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the investigation led to seven defendants being arrested and jailed for the duration of their trial after they had been allowed to appear on their own recognizance. That juror was dismissed, and the others were questioned about whether they had been approached for bribery.

Farah had already pleaded guilty to numerous charges related to the multimillion-dollar scam and was sentenced in August to 28 years in prison.

On Wednesday, Farah was sentenced to an additional 10 years for the bribery charge.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Murphy emphasized during sentencing how jury bribery could have a "chilling effect" on jury selection.

"How creepy is it that a defendant in a case was stalking you, both online and in real life?" he asked. "Following you home, coming to your door?"

Prosecutors alleged that the defendants had targeted that juror because she was the youngest juror and a minority. They obtained evidence that showed they wanted her to persuade other jurors to vote for acquittal based on claims of racial bias.

Farah spoke before being sentenced and cried during an apology to the court, the juror, and the prosecutors.

"My biggest regret revolves around the negative impact my conduct has had on my community, our great state, and the judicial system," he said. "My conduct has cost me more than I ever imagined, and I am responsible for it."

RELATED: FBI RAIDS 'Quality Learing Center' and nearly 2 dozen more in Minnesota FRAUD investigation

He also said the time he has spent in jail has humbled him.

"Farah and his co-defendants participated in an unprecedented attack on the justice system," Murphy added.

All of the defendants charged in the bribery scheme pleaded guilty. Five of the seven defendants in the original case were convicted, while the other two were acquitted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Shiloh Hendrix Won’t Be The Last Victim Of The Left’s Fight To Criminalize Speech

Words may be offensive and rude, but they are not violence.

In Blue America, Insulting The Third World Is A Blasphemous Offense

The political forces governing blue America now deem it blasphemous to say something rude to their protected class of Third World migrants.

Judge In Shiloh Hendrix Case Repeatedly Let Sex Offenders Walk Without Jailtime

Christa Daily has a history of granting outrageous plea deals and letting convicted sex offenders off with light punishments and little to no jail time.