A few years ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a basic free speech principle: “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.”
It’s a sleight of hand. They couldn’t prosecute her for using racial slurs, so they found a vague enough law to go after her for something else. If her behavior (minus the slurs) would normally result in prosecution, America would have run out of prisons a long time ago.
Sue whom? The Somali man just made a video. And the courts are immune from suit. Lastly, I don’t see a “deprivation of civil rights” under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The judge made an error in not immediately dismissing the case when the prosecution rested its case, but as indicated, courts are immune from suit over error.
She was harassed and then convicted of disorderly conduct. Doesn’t she have a right to say words? I’m sure that you are correct but I am struggling to understand what law she broke.
All of the wrongful conviction cases (financial claims) depend on “exoneration”: (1) there having been evidence at the time that proves the defendant could not have committed the crime and (2) that that evidence was known to the police/prosecutor or would have been known absent failures of routine procedures.
I’m not aware of any financial payouts where the defendant received a settlement because of a change in a point of law, e.g., the famous 1966 SCOTUS case “Miranda v. Arizona.” Miranda was retried excluding his statements to the police, but was convicted again, this time using his jailhouse statements to his girlfriend.
A classic financial settlement fact pattern would be police not submitting DNA evidence for testing and that omission being challenged years later by a competent appellate attorney, whereupon it’s tested and the prisoner’s DNA is a complete mismatch.
So we have 1A rights but absolutely no recourse to justice when those rights are violated, we just have to take it? There is no path to fight this and no one has ever sued and won for this kind of violation?
You misunderstand the limited scope of my reply to Aladdin. He asked about “suing for damages,” which is a civil claim. Shiloh Hendrix has criminal appeal rights regarding her misdemeanor conviction – to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, then to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. Normally, misdemeanor cases like this would be turned down by both Supreme Courts, but as a 1A case, they would likely hear it. It’s hard to believe her conviction would survive the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
The only good thing out of this whole debacle is getting to read Gigachad Clarence Thomas write a complete repudiation of fighting words in a couple years.
And on the other end of things compelled speech is running amok and no court case exists to attempt to prevent it. Either my rights are respected by all parties or I have none. I'm thinking of the baseball players that wrote Bible verses and were fined and suspended. If your company can do to you, you have no rights nor a government that will protect those rights.
Employers can fire you for your speech. The key is they can’t imprison you. Baseball players (and all pro athletes) have contracts spelling out unacceptable actions & language off the field. Employers are not required to continue associating with an individual they consider harmful to the employer’s reputation. Refer to the case of James Damore fired by Google in 2017 for writing an internal memo on Google’s Slack channel questioning DEI, which other employees took public to force Google’s hand to fire Damore.
The Constitution grants no privately held group, company, corporation and not even itself God Given Rights!…the government is instituted to PROTECT those Rights no matter who the offender is. If the government fails to do that, I submit you HAVE NONE because then any Joe blow can run over them including your employer,who has been granted no larger right than me. Your just a statist who prefers to outsource his thinking to authority not granted to anybody under the Constitution. Or is that too free?……
The 1A constrains the government (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) from restricting the content of speech. This was (and remains) a major issue under the British government, and derivative governments (Canada & Australia.)
Esoterically, this is because the U.S. has a constitution that is superior to all 3 branches and all states, whereas the British Commonwealth governments derive their authority from the King & Parliament, not the People. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an act of the Canadian Parliament. Since the Parliament is controlled by the majority party at any given time, the People really don’t have much protection when complaining about the majority party’s agenda. Trudeau proved this by imprisoning people who spoke against the Canadian COVID programs. And it’s why the Biden admin’s actions in that same direction were both unconstitutional and illegal.
Consider the Tenth Amendment to see the point of the Constitution. That amendment was written to summarize our Constitution. Certain limited "powers" were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Other "powers" were "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States." Other "powers" were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." None of that has anything to do with the relative powers of employers and employees except to the extent that state or federal governments are employers and employees of both are U.S. citizens who are (as Article IV and Amendment XIV emphasize) entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens.
I do not see a “subject matter” connection between (1) the 10th Amendment (allocating powers between the States and the Federal government) and (2) the supposed prohibition on discretionary employment termination by private employers.
Interesting, "privileges and immunities" both are something government grants to me via specific membership, not something I already possess via God,.... I.E., a RIGHT as enshrined, not granted in the Constition. I still maintain the Constitution itself grants no other entity authority over me. But how does the Constitutional, legal framework not produce a cultural one that follows it?....
Not sure I agree with the absolutist position. Words MEANT to start a fight are not protected - After “Hey I saw your mother died, I sure am glad the bitch is dead”, a punch in the nose is to be expected and a First Amendment prosecution of the puncher for violating expressive conduct would be wrong.
Of course this does not apply to the Shiloh Hendrix case, the aggressor in this case ASKED FOR the words to be repeated with the express PURPOSE of harming the speaker.
This is all well said and I do agree. But I do have a question: to what extent was the GiveSendGo campaign supporting her (between 700,000 and 1 million dollars) the week after the incident have any impact on the charges, court decision, or any other aspect of the case? I don’t like the precedent this conviction sets but I do wonder if that publicity (and dollar amount) poisoned the well a bit.
I can’t imagine retaining a lawyer for a case like this would have cost her 700k to one million dollars (a subsequent case likely would). But I have no idea. I’m more just curious if that fundraiser (which was premised on providing safety to her family) affected the judgment of the court.
John, you could look much closer to home than events in Europe or Iran. Your assertion that you "cannot believe that God (in whose existence [you] believe) looks with indifference" on the evil that men do reminds me of something very similar that Jefferson said.
"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"
Jefferson invoked God but only because God was important "in the minds of the people" and invoking God would help "the liberties of a nation be thought secure." But, in fact, he feared man. He feared "a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation" of master and slave.
Two tier justices, driven by leftists critical theories and feelings. It would appear that in Minnesota, as a general matter, Somalis can do what they like in all cases, while to not be in disagreement with this imposed hierarchy will be criminalized. From Nick Shirley’s videos to this case, Minnesota has been conquered - voluntarily.
It’s a sleight of hand. They couldn’t prosecute her for using racial slurs, so they found a vague enough law to go after her for something else. If her behavior (minus the slurs) would normally result in prosecution, America would have run out of prisons a long time ago.
100% 👍
Appeal and sue for damages.
Sue whom? The Somali man just made a video. And the courts are immune from suit. Lastly, I don’t see a “deprivation of civil rights” under 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The judge made an error in not immediately dismissing the case when the prosecution rested its case, but as indicated, courts are immune from suit over error.
She was harassed and then convicted of disorderly conduct. Doesn’t she have a right to say words? I’m sure that you are correct but I am struggling to understand what law she broke.
I agree with you 100%.
All of the wrongful conviction cases (financial claims) depend on “exoneration”: (1) there having been evidence at the time that proves the defendant could not have committed the crime and (2) that that evidence was known to the police/prosecutor or would have been known absent failures of routine procedures.
I’m not aware of any financial payouts where the defendant received a settlement because of a change in a point of law, e.g., the famous 1966 SCOTUS case “Miranda v. Arizona.” Miranda was retried excluding his statements to the police, but was convicted again, this time using his jailhouse statements to his girlfriend.
A classic financial settlement fact pattern would be police not submitting DNA evidence for testing and that omission being challenged years later by a competent appellate attorney, whereupon it’s tested and the prisoner’s DNA is a complete mismatch.
So we have 1A rights but absolutely no recourse to justice when those rights are violated, we just have to take it? There is no path to fight this and no one has ever sued and won for this kind of violation?
You misunderstand the limited scope of my reply to Aladdin. He asked about “suing for damages,” which is a civil claim. Shiloh Hendrix has criminal appeal rights regarding her misdemeanor conviction – to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, then to the Minnesota Supreme Court, and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. Normally, misdemeanor cases like this would be turned down by both Supreme Courts, but as a 1A case, they would likely hear it. It’s hard to believe her conviction would survive the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
“It’s hard to believe her conviction would survive the Minnesota Court of Appeals.”
Given how leftist the politics in MN are now, I agree with all of the rest of what you wrote, save this last line.
I ain’t saying I’m sure they won’t overturn it, merely that one should not be surprised if they don’t.
OK, that makes more sense. Most people use "sue" as a general term, but you're using a more legally specific definition.
Thank you for the explanation John.
At first I thought this must have happened in the UK. She might’ve been jailed there.
They’d have revived the death penalty. They handcuffed Henry Nowak & let him bleed to death based on one person’s lie.
The only good thing out of this whole debacle is getting to read Gigachad Clarence Thomas write a complete repudiation of fighting words in a couple years.
Clarence “burning a cross is a true threat” Thomas? Clarence “disrespecting the flag can be punished” Thomas?
He’s an interesting character, but no free-speech warrior.
Interesting you mention only actions, not speech at all, in your attempt to smear Thomas.
[FWIW, I disagree with you on your first example, probably agree with you on your 2nd but don’t remember the details.]
Are y'all going to represent her in the appeal?
I mean quite possibly. ACLU defended the Skokie Nazis. The ACLU is not what it was but FIRE is the new ACLU.
Leftist activists inflame me daily but I still must tolerate them and their speech.
And on the other end of things compelled speech is running amok and no court case exists to attempt to prevent it. Either my rights are respected by all parties or I have none. I'm thinking of the baseball players that wrote Bible verses and were fined and suspended. If your company can do to you, you have no rights nor a government that will protect those rights.
Employers can fire you for your speech. The key is they can’t imprison you. Baseball players (and all pro athletes) have contracts spelling out unacceptable actions & language off the field. Employers are not required to continue associating with an individual they consider harmful to the employer’s reputation. Refer to the case of James Damore fired by Google in 2017 for writing an internal memo on Google’s Slack channel questioning DEI, which other employees took public to force Google’s hand to fire Damore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_Ideological_Echo_Chamber
Then what is the point of the Constitution then?.....
The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect you from the government.
If you don’t like your employer, quit. If they don’t like you, they can fire you.
Keep making the staists argument for them, enjoy subjugation.
The Constitution grants no privately held group, company, corporation and not even itself God Given Rights!…the government is instituted to PROTECT those Rights no matter who the offender is. If the government fails to do that, I submit you HAVE NONE because then any Joe blow can run over them including your employer,who has been granted no larger right than me. Your just a statist who prefers to outsource his thinking to authority not granted to anybody under the Constitution. Or is that too free?……
The 1A constrains the government (“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”) from restricting the content of speech. This was (and remains) a major issue under the British government, and derivative governments (Canada & Australia.)
Esoterically, this is because the U.S. has a constitution that is superior to all 3 branches and all states, whereas the British Commonwealth governments derive their authority from the King & Parliament, not the People. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an act of the Canadian Parliament. Since the Parliament is controlled by the majority party at any given time, the People really don’t have much protection when complaining about the majority party’s agenda. Trudeau proved this by imprisoning people who spoke against the Canadian COVID programs. And it’s why the Biden admin’s actions in that same direction were both unconstitutional and illegal.
Yeah, THATS working out really well……
Consider the Tenth Amendment to see the point of the Constitution. That amendment was written to summarize our Constitution. Certain limited "powers" were "delegated to the United States by the Constitution." Other "powers" were "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States." Other "powers" were "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." None of that has anything to do with the relative powers of employers and employees except to the extent that state or federal governments are employers and employees of both are U.S. citizens who are (as Article IV and Amendment XIV emphasize) entitled to all the "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens.
I do not see a “subject matter” connection between (1) the 10th Amendment (allocating powers between the States and the Federal government) and (2) the supposed prohibition on discretionary employment termination by private employers.
Interesting, "privileges and immunities" both are something government grants to me via specific membership, not something I already possess via God,.... I.E., a RIGHT as enshrined, not granted in the Constition. I still maintain the Constitution itself grants no other entity authority over me. But how does the Constitutional, legal framework not produce a cultural one that follows it?....
Not sure I agree with the absolutist position. Words MEANT to start a fight are not protected - After “Hey I saw your mother died, I sure am glad the bitch is dead”, a punch in the nose is to be expected and a First Amendment prosecution of the puncher for violating expressive conduct would be wrong.
Of course this does not apply to the Shiloh Hendrix case, the aggressor in this case ASKED FOR the words to be repeated with the express PURPOSE of harming the speaker.
Exactly.
As his comment ‘we’ll see about that’ shows.
He baited her.
He knew he’d be protected and she wouldn’t be.
This would excuse every schoolyard chest bumping contest turning into violent conduct, no?
Not sure what your point is here
This is all well said and I do agree. But I do have a question: to what extent was the GiveSendGo campaign supporting her (between 700,000 and 1 million dollars) the week after the incident have any impact on the charges, court decision, or any other aspect of the case? I don’t like the precedent this conviction sets but I do wonder if that publicity (and dollar amount) poisoned the well a bit.
I can’t imagine retaining a lawyer for a case like this would have cost her 700k to one million dollars (a subsequent case likely would). But I have no idea. I’m more just curious if that fundraiser (which was premised on providing safety to her family) affected the judgment of the court.
I mean, for better or worse, she's a pariah in her community at this point, so she should probably get out of dodge.
Your point in this particular case is *so* obvious it shouldn’t need repeating.
Sadly it does.
I fault you only for not chastising the judge for failing to immediately overturn the verdict since it obviously cannot stand.
Anyone who understands the First Amendment is quoting Voltaire here.
She should've just said AIPAC made her do it.
John, you could look much closer to home than events in Europe or Iran. Your assertion that you "cannot believe that God (in whose existence [you] believe) looks with indifference" on the evil that men do reminds me of something very similar that Jefferson said.
"can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!"
Jefferson invoked God but only because God was important "in the minds of the people" and invoking God would help "the liberties of a nation be thought secure." But, in fact, he feared man. He feared "a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation" of master and slave.
Two tier justices, driven by leftists critical theories and feelings. It would appear that in Minnesota, as a general matter, Somalis can do what they like in all cases, while to not be in disagreement with this imposed hierarchy will be criminalized. From Nick Shirley’s videos to this case, Minnesota has been conquered - voluntarily.
And the Blaine amendment exists in 37 states Constitutions, still doesn't make it right.
She chased an autistic child down and called him racist slurs. The First Amendment doesn’t cover that.
"Yesterday, the jury acquitted Hendrix on the count involving the child but convicted her on the count arising from her interaction with Omar."