Minnesota can’t seem to stay out of the news. Yesterday a jury in Rochester returned a guilty verdict in the prosecution of Shiloh Hendrix, a young woman was caught on video calling a Somali man a “nigger.” The incident occurred in a public park, where a Somali boy stole something from a bag belonging to Hendrix and her own young child. Hendrix recovered the item from the boy and called him a “nigger.” A bystander then intervened, and started filming his own colloquy with Hendrix. That video went viral and was seen by millions:
Does “cracker” count too? Cuz if so we’re gonna need more prisons. https://t.co/mrNGc9RtRb
— The Drunk Republican (@DrunkRepub) July 24, 2026
The trial, on a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge, was fractious and lasted for several days. The jury ultimately convicted Hendrix on one of two counts. As I understand it, the jury did not convict Hendrix based on her interaction with the Somali child, but did convict her for her exchange with the bystander who filmed the incident. I don’t know what the logic behind that decision was.
The case gained a lot of publicity, and both the Somali boy and Hendrix will benefit from six-figure GoFundMe campaigns. Hendrix’s lawyer says he will appeal.
There is, of course, a free speech element in the case. Is it really a crime to call someone a “nigger”? If it were, a lot of rappers and others might be in prison.
I believe this case was prosecuted under Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.72 (1)(3), which provides that speech can constitute disorderly conduct:
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
***
(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
I think this provision was written to correspond to the “fighting words” exception to the First Amendment, which has long been recognized. Whether the exchange here qualifies for that exception will, at least initially, be up to Minnesota’s appellate courts. Those courts are dominated by Democrats, and our Supreme Court is entirely Democrat-appointed. So Hendrix’s lawyer will face an uphill battle.
