Shiloh Hendrix is a thirty-seven year old woman in Minnesota who took her toddler child to Roy Sutherland playground in Soldier Field Memorial Park in Rochester, MN in April of last year. While there, an 8-year-old boy of Somali descent reached into Hendrix’s diaper bag and took an apple sauce pouch from it, then started running away. Hendrix chased the boy down onto the top of playground equipment and retrieved the pouch. In the playing out of this scenario, Hendrix called the boy the N-word.

Sharmake Omar is a 30-year-old man of Somali descent who was at the park that day and witnessed the events transpire. Omar is not related to the child and does not know the child, but says he knows the parents. He heard Hendrix call the child the N-word and confronted her about it, recording his interaction with her. Hendrix, in the recorded interaction, admitted to calling the child the racial slur and defended doing so by saying, “That’s what he is.” The only place I could find the video (I’m not on social media) was from the Matt Walsh program on YouTube. So, if you want, you can watch the video here. I won’t be commenting on Walsh’s take on the matter. You can make your own judgements.

During her interaction with Omar, Hendrix repeatedly used curses to tell Omar to mind his own business, that she didn’t care what he thought, and giving him the middle finger. In response to her insistence that she didn’t care what Omar or anyone thought, Omar responded  “We’ll see about that, what the Internet has to say about you.” Omar posted the video on social media and it went viral. Hendrix was condemned for her racism, for her attacking a child, and for her generally rude behavior. She was obviously angry and not having her best moment, but neither has she apologized for her act of calling a child a racial slur, or for chasing the child down after he stole from her diaper bag. It came out later that the child is autistic, and his father explained that he is in the habit of taking things that don’t belong to him and running away with them. Obviously, there’s no way Hendrix could have known that at the time, but what difference does it make? You don’t treat any child that way, autistic or not. The child was being supervised by his father, Shire Jimale, at the playground and Jimale testified at the trial that he thought Hendrix would have phyically assaulted his son if he had not been there.

The NAACP put out a statement, saying, “According to video evidence, an adult white female traumatized, chased, and hurled vicious racial slurs at this child in Soldiers Field Park in Rochester, Minnesota, and showed no remorse for her actions against a vulnerable child.” The NAACP demanded legal action against Hendrix. For her part, Hendrix never did apologize for her actions against the child or against Omar. She reported that she has received multiple threats against her life, her family’s life, and even her child’s life. Matt Walsh, in his program, shows videos where a woman is saying that Hendrix should be imprisoned for her actions, and another video where a man actually recommends that the woman’s baby be beaten to the point of permanent brain damage because, otherwise, he would grow up to become a racist and a threat to the Black community. Others have called for CPS to get involved and to take the child from the family. Omar has reported that he has also received threats against him because of his posting of the video.

Hendrix’s home address, phone number, and other personal information was obtained by people online and she was quickly doxxed. In response, an online fundraising campaign was started, which has collected over $900,000. Hendrix claims she needs the money to relocate her family because of the multiple threats against them, including threats to burn her house down and, again, to harm her and her child. An online fundraising campaign was also started for the child who was the target of Hendrix’s slurs and screams, and that has raised over $300,000.

Hendrix was charged with two counts of disorderly conduct (well, three originally, but one was quickly dropped before she went to trial). The two charges were for her behavior toward the child and her behavior toward Omar. What’s intereting is that the jury found Hendrix not guilty regarding her behavior toward the child and guilty regarding her behavior toward Omar. What’s even more interesting, and disturbing, is that Hendrix was charged and brought to trial at all. Based on what I’ve read, her attorney did little to defend his client on First Amendment grounds, choosing instead a strategy of attacking Jimale’s credibility and antagonizing the judge. She needs a new attorney. He says he’s going to appeal the verdict and, of course, he should. But I hope she gets a new attorney for the appeal. Not because she’s a particularly good person who deserves a break, but because the integrity of the First Amendment needs defending by someone competent enough to do that.

I hate to say it, but let’s be clear here: Shiloh Hendrix was charged and brought to trial because she is White. That is all. If Shiloh Hendrix had been a Black woman and she called a Black child a the N-word this video would not have gone viral, likely would not have been made in the first place, and certainly would not have been the basis for cancelling her and charging her with a crime. Indeed, it is not crime to call a person anything, whether that be a racial slur or what have you. It is incongruous that Shiloh Hendrix was charged with a crime for calling a child a racial slur targeting Blacks that is regularly employed by Black individuals against each other, and regularly employed in hip-hop and rap music. Given that, the only reasonable conclusion is that she was charged, not because she targeted a child with a racial slur, but because she is a White woman who targeted a Black child with a racial slur. That is not consistent with equal justice under the law.

And how she was charged with disorderly conduct for her behavior toward Omar is beyond me. One adult telling another adult to mind his own business and giving him the finger, even if it is within a tirade of foul language, is not illegal. Hendrix made no threats against Omar, verbal or otherwise. Indeed, Omar taunted her, challenging her to repeat the offensive word, which she did. Still, nothing in her words or actions toward Omar constitute a crime. The only meaningful point that Hendrix’s lawyer made at the trial that I can find is the distinction between something being immoral (which calling a child or anyone else a racial slur certainly is) and something being illegal (which calling a child or anyone else a racial slur certainly is not). The bottom line is, while Shiloh Hendrix may be a racist, repugnant individual, the First Amendment still protects her right to speak her mind without threat from the government. The mind she spoke was offensive, immoral, repugnant, and racist. But, let’s face it, the First Amendment is not there to protect speech with which we all agree, or speech we find edifying. Such speech needs no protection. It’s the speech that everyone, or at least some, find offensive, immoral, and repugnant that needs protecting. Why? Because if the government can charge and fine someone, or even imprison someone, for saying something they don’t like, then no one can safely say anything, because who’s to say that the next DA or the next governor, or the next mayor won’t like what you say and come after you?

And, since we’re talking about offensive, immoral, and repugnant things to say, who’s going after the dude who made a public call to the community to beat Hendrix’s baby to the point of permanent brain damage? Have we decided that threatening a child with physical harm, even permanent brain damage, is less offensive, less immoral, and less repugnant than calling a child a racist slur? That doesn’t make sense!

In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled, in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that, “the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to speak his mind regardless of whether the government considers his speech sensible and well intentioned or deeply misguided and likely to cause anguish or incalculable grief.” There is not question that Hendrix’s speech to the 8-year-old child was “deeply misguided and likely to cause anguish or incalculable grief.” But the speech is protected. The only conclusion I can come to in this case is that the jury got it wrong. Badly wrong. Were they counselled poorly? Did they receive bad instructions from the judge? I don’t know. But they got it badly wrong. Everything that Shiloh Hendrix said to the child and in the video recorded by Omar is protected speech. Offensive, immoral, repugnant, and racist speech, to be sure. But nevertheless protected. I expect her conviction will be overturned on appeal. For the sake of the First Amendment, it needs to be.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.