White woman stands trial over claims she called autistic black boy, 8, racist word in playground during fight over applesauce

daily mail ^ | July 21 2026 | JOE HUTCHISON

[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.

[CarolinaReaganFan]

sounds like wrong person arrested.
no law against stupid

[montag813]

Retired city school teacher here. In the district where I worked, some enterprising folks have set up cottage industries.

Horrible. And nothing has, or will ever be done about it.

[ladyjane]

But I’d probably still find her guilty for being stupid.

That's an emotional response. Do you believe it's a solid legal response?

The stupid people are those who make decisions about who may use certain words. They even have decided that we may not use the word niggardly. That word has been in use in our language since the 1500's. Shakespeare used it multiple times in three of his plays. People who think it is a racist epithet are the stupid ones.

[Sequoyah101]

Black and Autistic? Well, that’s different. He gets a pass for life. Autistic Blacks can steal all the applesauce and do whatever they want to. The are, after all, entitled.

Case closed. She is guilty, execute her. Next!

/s?

[Bullish]

So do we charge black people who call anyone they want every name in the book? No? Freedom of speech is for everyone or it’s for no one.

If they find her guilty, then she should appeal this all the way up to the supreme court.

[Leaning Right]

> Horrible. And nothing has, or will ever be done about it [special ed fraud] <

Horrible, yes indeed. But I don’t think anything can be down to stop it. You can’t stop some neighborhood guy from advising a kid on how to take a special ed evaluation.

And you can’t stop that kid from later giving the “wrong” answers on the evaluation itself.

The only possible solution would be to scrap the whole special ed system. Just treat each kid individually. If, for example, he can’t handle a regular reading class, okay. Put him in a lower level class. One-on-one teaching if need be. No big deal.

But no politician (D or R) has the will to scrap the whole system.

[bk1000]

How can she be charged for using a word in common use?

[null and void]

Starts with "n",
rhymes with "pigglet?

I dumped a girlfriend after she used that word...

[j.havenfarm]

Happy to answer. Matt Walsh has given the stats. Though I dont recall the particulars as a group Somalians are in the low normal range

[muir_redwoods]

If Shiloh were black, would this crime be charged? If not, are we looking at disparate impact or unequal treatment?

[Steve Van Doorn]

I had to look this up on how words can be considered incitement of violence.

"You are a god%^&%#d racketeer" and "a damned fascist" to the persons face. was convicted for using "fighting words"
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)



Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
threats at police officers which was not "fighting words" by SCOTUS:
To one officer: "White son of a b!^ch, I'll kill you" and "You son of a b!^ch, I'll choke you to death."
To another accompanying officer: "You son of a b!^ch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I'll cut you all to pieces."
Ruling stated, "unconstitutionally vague and overbroad" but not fighting words.

Go figure. The judges must have checked melanin levels found him innocent ?

[Jim Noble]

I do not believe that telling off an 8 year old kid would likely be a direct provocation likely to trigger immediate violence.

Yes, as I said, I thought her defense against a "fighting words" charge would be strong, but I also said to FLT-Bird that a law exempting "fighting words" from Amendment I protection was NOT unconstitutional.

By the way, I think the Fuck the Draft decision was wrongly decided.

[FLT-bird]

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.

Fighting words....in states that allow it....is not a criminal charge. Its a defense against a battery charge. Calling somebody a bad name is clearly constitutionally protected speech.

What the government is trying to do here is turn speech into an act. Federal courts have always rejected that except in cases of solicitation, fraud and conspiracy/bribery. Speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action. Insults do not fit any of the above and are constitutionally protected speech.

[MayflowerMadam]

How is it possible to “racially abuse” someone?

[Deaf Smith]

The Somalis as a class should and do have their own term of reference, and that is to call them Skinnies.

[TexasGator]

“Notably absent from the article is that the kid, and obviously his father, are Somali.”

So was the camera man that harassed her after the initial incident.

[Steve Van Doorn]

you might be interested in the clear threat that was given in the case:
Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972) in my post 71.

[FLT-bird]

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.

How far does it go? It goes all the way.

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.

Uttering fighting words is not a crime. Its a defense. For example if you call me a poopy head and I punch you in the face, my defense (in states that allow it) would be fighting words. You could not be charged with calling someone a poopy head. America is not Germany.

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.

This is the correct constitutional view. You have no right to not be offended.

But a Minnesota jury might think differently.

But if they do, the federal courts will think differently because the constitution says differently.

[ladyjane]

They are not in the low normal range. Their IQ has been tested and it came in at an average of 68. The cut off from normal to retarded is 70.

I just went to the Daily Mail website and apparently you can post anymore. LOL You may, however, downvote the existing posts and many people are doing that.

[TexasGator]

Charges filed by county prosecutor. Most likely Minnesota law. Law is unconstitutional in itself.

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Subdivision

1.Crime.

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:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(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.

A person does not violate this section if the person’s disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.