img

Minnesota mom harassed by TikToker appeals 'disorderly conduct' conviction for saying n-word

The conviction of Hendrix relied on a legal interpretation of her comments towards Sharmarke Omar, which were defined as "fighting words."

The conviction of Hendrix relied on a legal interpretation of her comments towards Sharmarke Omar, which were defined as "fighting words."

Shiloh Hendrix, the mother who was convicted of disorderly conduct after saying the N-word towards a Somali man who egged her into saying it on camera, has appealed her case with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

She is appealing her conviction of one count of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor. She was handed a sentence of 200 hours of community service and had to pay a $1,000 fine. Her defense attorney, Brian Karalus, filed the appeal on her behalf on July 30, per KMT3.

The appeal comes after critics, including the free speech advocacy group, the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, have said that the conviction cannot be squared with First Amendment rights. The conviction of Hendrix relied on a legal interpretation of her comments towards Sharmarke Omar—the Somali TikTok user who was previously charged with sexual assault—which were defined as "fighting words."

The instruction given to the jury by Assistant Chief District Court Judge Christa M. Daily said that fighting words are "words that constitute personally offensive epithets that, when spoken to the ordinary person, under the particular circumstances of the case, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or incite an immediate breach of the peace by those to whom such words are addressed," even if there is not violent reaction.

Critics pointed to the video, saying that the exchange between Omar and Hendrix was a heated argument, and that Omar even solicited Hendrix to use the term, thereby not falling under the category of "fighting words," which is a very limited legal exception.



FIRE said in an article in response to the conviction, “Unless the trial record contains some critical fact absent from public reporting, that conviction cannot stand under the First Amendment. The video merely shows a heated verbal exchange between Hendrix and Omar. No threats. No violence. Nothing beyond words. However much offense they caused, that simply does not justify the government imprisoning, fining, or otherwise punishing the speaker. A public argument does not become a crime because a speaker used a particular word.”

“Omar solicited Hendrix — who was walking away while carrying her child — to repeat the slur so he could capture it on video and shame her. She did so and then continued walking away. Nothing about the interaction suggests Hendrix’s words were likely to provoke an immediate violent response,” FIRE later added in their article.
Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments

Join and support independent free thinkers!

We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.

Support The Post Millennial

Remind me next month

To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
ADVERTISEMENT
© 2026 The Post Millennial, Privacy Policy