Posted on 07/21/2026 9:59:55 AM PDT by Morgana
A white woman has gone on trial over claims she racially abused an autistic black boy in a playground after a spat over applesauce.
Shiloh Hendrix, 37, was filmed allegedly calling a young black boy the 'N-word' at a park in Rochester, Minnesota, last April.
Video of the exchange went viral and Hendrix was charged with three counts of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge with a maximum of 90 days in jail.
Hendrix, who has pleaded not guilty, appeared on Monday in Olmsted County District Court as jury selection got underway for her trial.
The jury will decide whether her behavior was unlawful and likely to cause violence, or if her words are protected under the First Amendment.
According to KTTC, Hendrix's lawyer Brian Karalus raised concerns that he did not have a list of witnesses that the state intended to call during trial.
Prosecutors said they would not release their witness list due to safety concerns, they also said that Karalus knew this and had made no prior objections, the outlet said.
KAALTV reported that right wing activist Jake Lang was in court as proceedings got underway, while protestors outside held sings calling for Hendrix to be freed.
Jury selection is expected to continue today which will be followed by opening statements.
I was doing a repair at a Minneapolistan public housing project years ago. Little kids in the five year old range were nearby. They called each other nigga constantly. If I would have called them that I would be in prison. Go figure. Listen to any rap song and you will hear it constantly.
Yes ... there’s a certain segment of the black population that calls each other “nigger” and “motherfucker” and other obscenities and vulgarities at a rate that no other demographic even approaches. Their pretense at being offended by such language is just that: pretense. It serves as a weapon of robbery: they pretend to be offended, and idiots in government shovel tax money (stolen money) to them.
Per Grok:
What is the list of words you cant say?
**Words like “Nigger”** (the N-word) are among the most heavily restricted in modern English due to their history as **racial slurs** with deep roots in dehumanization, slavery, and systemic racism.
### Categories of Highly Restricted Words:
1. **Racial / Ethnic Slurs** (the strongest taboos)
- The N-word (against Black people)
- Various slurs against Jewish people, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc.
2. **Other High-Charge Slurs**
- Anti-gay slurs (e.g., the F-word for homosexual)
- Anti-trans or gender-based slurs
- Severe misogynistic or ableist terms
3. **Context Matters**
- In-group reclamation (e.g., some Black people using the N-word among themselves) is common but still extremely risky for outsiders.
- Quoting historical texts, discussing the word academically, or in comedy/rap can be acceptable in the right context — but even then, many people use euphemisms (”the N-word”).
### Why These Words Are “Not Allowed”
They carry centuries of trauma and power dynamics. Using them (especially as a non-member of the targeted group) is widely seen as punching down and can cause real social, professional, or legal consequences.
**My approach**: I generally avoid using or spelling out the most offensive slurs unless directly necessary for a serious discussion. If you have a specific context or question (history, linguistics, free speech debate, etc.), I can address it thoughtfully without gratuitous use of the words.
The UK’s ‘Daily Mail’ and New York’s ‘Post’ are actually pretty good news sources.
Both are tabloid in nature, and will get a bit sensational at times.
But they will not shy away from reporting stories the mainstream sources prefer to ignore. And that includes politically incorrect stuff.
She had every right to complain to the kid's father (you don't berate someone else's kid, especially if their parent is around). Even though her choice of words toward the child was low-class and ignorant, there's no law against being low-class or ignorant. Charging her with a crime is just plain stupid.
"Not only that but the brat is not arrested for theft nor are his parents investigated as to why he steels food?
I don't see arresting an eight year old boy for stealing a 4 oz. cup of applesauce. The story says the kid's father tried to chase the kid down. I don't see where the two parents discussed this and attempted to handle it an adult way.
If for some reason one wanted to refer to a child of African ancestry with an N word, here are a number of options:
Nama
Nara
Ndendeule
Ngbandi
Ngoni
Nkole
Northern Ndebele
Nubians
Nubis
Nuer
Nupe
Nyambo
Nyoro
If stupid is a crime, a lot of people need to be arrested.
What's wrong with this picture?
Black rappers have taken the sting out of the use of the word by saying it constantly. I think she skates. A lot of nasty words are protected by the first amendment. You can even call someone a Democrat and it’s still legal.
> First Amendment. The charges are unconstitutional. <
The 1A protects you against things like insulting a police officer or other government official. I don’t know how far it goes when insulting a private person.
Also, some states used to have “fighting words” laws. It was a crime to say something that could be interpreted as trying to cause a fight. I don’t know if those laws are still existence.
Anyway, I’m a “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” kind of a guy. So I see no harm done by that woman uttering one word.
But a Minnesota jury might think differently.
Same here. DM article reporting on an incident in the UK. I thought, “Yep, they are gone.”
I was shocked to see it’s in the USA. What prosecutor would even bring such a charge?
Not sure they are unconstitutional. The "fighting words" doctrine has always been recognized as an Amendment I exception, at least under certain circumstances.
Provocation is a valid defense, certainly seems like it in this case, but the LAW that criminalizes "fighting words" isn't per se unconstitutional.
What prosecutor? One that wants to make HERE like the UK...
The whole point of the Civil Rights Movement was to allow black people to say a word that white people can’t.
The doctrine comes from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), where the Supreme Court held that certain speech falls outside constitutional protection because it's not essential to any exposition of ideas and has low social value compared to the harm it causes. Fighting words were defined as words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace — essentially, insults directed at a specific person likely to provoke a violent reaction on the spot.
The category has been narrowed heavily in practice since 1942. The Court has never upheld another fighting-words conviction, and cases like Cohen v. California (1971, the "F*** the Draft" jacket case) and Gooding v. Wilson (1972) struck down convictions for speech that offended but didn't target a specific individual with an imminent threat of violence. Courts have also rejected the idea that words merely because they're racist, sexist, or otherwise deeply offensive count as fighting words — the doctrine requires a face-to-face, direct provocation likely to trigger immediate violence, not just offensive content.
I do not believe that telling off an 8 year old kid would likely be a direct provocation likely to trigger immediate violence.
And here I always though retarded was spelled differently.
This is truly bizarro world.
Big time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.