If you're a conservative and/or interested in free speech issues, you've likely heard about the Shiloh Hendrix case. If you haven't, David's piece here is a decent primer.
A quick synopsis:
- Ms. Hendrix was with her son at a playground in Rochester, Minnesota.
- An autistic Somali boy - apparently one with actual autism, not the phantom ones that didn't go to the fake "Autism" clinics that are such a big part of Minnesota's ongoing fraud scandal - grabbed something from Ms. Hendrix's purse.
- Ms. Hendrix purportedly dropped the "n" bomb on the boy.
- A man, Sharmake Omar, who was at the park with the boy, turned on his phone's video camera and asked, dared, perhaps even goaded Ms. Hendrix to call him the same thing.
- Ms. Hendrix obliged him.
- Ms. Hendrix was charged with two counts of "Disturbing the Peace" - one for the boy, one for Mr. Omar.
- Last week, Ms. Hendrix was acquitted of the charges related to the boy - but convicted on the charges related to Mr. Omar. She was sentenced to a small fine and a suspended jail sentence with a fair chunk of time on probation.
It was pointed out that Mr. Omar himself had a bit of a spotty criminal past - and an incongruously clean criminal record:
Let's take a walk through the "American justice system," shall we?
— Daniel Concannon (@TooWhiteToTweet) July 24, 2026
Sharmake Omar is the Somali man who filmed Shiloh Hendrix on the playground in Minnesota that day in April 2025.
In January 2022, he and another Somali man "allegedly" spent two days raping an underage foster… pic.twitter.com/AxyHtPybQ8
Sharmake Omar is the Somali man who filmed Shiloh Hendrix on the playground in Minnesota that day in April 2025.I
n January 2022, he and another Somali man "allegedly" spent two days raping an underage foster care runaway in a trailer, keeping her falsely imprisoned.I
n March 2025, all charges were dismissed "in the interest of justice."
Now, that doesn't bear directly on the Hendrix case - even apparently creepy, allegedly but not convicted rapey people are entitled to protection under the law.
Of course, the fact that Minnesota seems to have a two-tiered justice system that favors those in favor with the political class is causing some anger on the part of the state's normies.
But here's the other issue.
Here's the statute Ms. Hendrix was convicted of violating. I'm adding emphasis to the part that I'd like to focus on:
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.
[See Note.]
Subd. 2.
[Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1]
Subd. 3.Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct.
A caregiver, as defined in section 609.232, who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in section 609.232, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
History:
1963 c 753 art 1 s 609.72; 1967 c 242 s 1; 1971 c 23 s 71; 1988 c 689 art 2 s 236; 1991 c 279 s 34; 1994 c 636 art 2 s 46; 1995 c 229 art 2 s 7; 2023 c 52 art 6 s 16
NOTE: In State v. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166 (Minn 2017), subdivision 1, clause (2), was held unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is substantially overbroad.
"[O]ffensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others".
Isn't that exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment is supposed to protect from government restraint? If we only protect speech we all agree is good, enlightening, and above board, why would it need to be codified in the Constitution?
