Do you support Minnesota's Prosecution of Shiloh Hendrix?

On August 26, the city of Rochester Minnesota announced that it plans to bring criminal charges against Shiloh Hendrix for, essentially, uttering racial slurs: “The Rochester City Attorney’s Office is filing a complaint summons, stemming from the April 28, 2025, incident that occurred at Roy Sutherland Playground, at Soldier’s Field Park…” The draft complaint charges Shiloh Hendrix with three counts of Disorderly Conduct under Minnesota Statute 609.72, subd. 1(3), a misdemeanor level charge with a maximum of 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine.

On April 28, shortly after 6:00pm, Shiloh Hendrix was at a park in Rochester, Minnesota with her 18-month-old son. That’s when another boy, around the age of 8, went rummaging through her diaper bag and removed an applesauce pouch.
Eventually, Shiloh Hendrix chased the boy down and retrieved her property, though not before she called him a nig***.

That’s when a Somali man started filming. In case you haven’t seen the video, here it is as a refresher, albeit with the mandatory bleep-outs.

In an attempt to explain these charges, the Mayor of Rochester, Kim Norton, put out the following statement:
“This was a situation that deeply affected many people, especially our communities of color, and caused real turmoil in our community. We acknowledge the lasting impact this incident has had, not only on those directly involved and across our community, but also in the broader conversations happening at the state and national level. These moments remind us of the complexity and far-reaching impacts of situations like this. The City remains committed to staying engaged and proceeding with transparency and care, continuing efforts that support accountability and progress in Rochester.”

Meanwhile, the city added:
“This matter involved a large amount of evidence and required careful consideration of potential charging options across multiple offices. … As the legal process moves forward, the City recognizes not only the significant attention and emotion surrounding this case, but also the complex and lasting impacts situations like this have on communities of color and our broader community.”

The supporters of the prosecution point out that Hendrix used racial slurs against an autistic 8-year-old child. Her actions meet the elements of the criminal statute with which she was charged. The child's family and the local NAACP chapter called for her to be held accountable, with the NAACP specifically requesting further charges. While words alone may not be sufficient, the words used in combination with Hendrix's "aggressive" behavior toward the child could be grounds for prosecution. The boy's family said the incident was a "cruelty rooted in racism that inflicted lasting trauma." Rochester's mayor stated the incident "deeply affected many people" and that such behavior is not tolerated in the city.

The opponents argue that her speech is protected by the First Amendment. In a post on her fundraising site, Hendrix wrote, "In the United States, we are protected by the First Amendment, and no amount of hurt feelings can change that." Many lawyers agree with this position. The government cannot restrict speech simply because it is offensive, hurtful, or expresses hateful ideas. The government cannot discriminate against speech based on its viewpoint. Rather, it must protect even the most hateful and disagreeable ideas to ensure a robust marketplace of ideas and prevent the government from stifling dissent.

So what do you think? Come and share your opinion in a passionate, but respectful discussion. Or just bring your popcorn, sit back and listen to the others talk it over. We’ll have two designated speakers for and against the motion giving opening and closing statements, and an open floor discussion in between. Zoom credentials will be provided the day of the event.