The Shiloh Hendrix Verdict Is A Horrifying Sign For America. Here’s Why.

When a Somali child took Shiloh Hendrix’s property in a park last year, she had a few options. She could’ve ignored it, which is how white people are expected to respond to rampant theft by the Somalis who have taken over their communities. 

Alternatively, she could’ve complained and called the police, who would’ve taken two hours to arrive, at which point they would have dispatched a Somali police officer, who wouldn’t have done anything. 

But Shiloh Hendrix, as we all know, didn’t choose any of these options. She opted for a different, forbidden route: She verbalized her frustration with the Somali takeover of Minnesota. She made it abundantly clear that she’s tired of third-world dysfunction, which is so pervasive that it’s impossible to enjoy a nice day in the park. 

And for doing that, Hendrix has now been forced to endure yet another hallmark of so-called “Somali culture”: the punishment of free speech under the color of law. 

You see, in Somalia, if you say the wrong thing to the local warlord — if you’re not happy with how things are going in your local garbage dump, or your row of mud huts — then the warlord will take your goats away (if you’re lucky enough to own any). 

This is a country so primitive that they only passed a law against sexual assault a few years ago. They don’t respect freedom of speech in any way. And now, because Minnesota has become a colony of Somalia, Minnesota does not respect freedom of speech either. We now have Somali courts in the United States. 

Watch:

“Hatred” is now illegal — by which they mean, hatred of non-whites. They can hate you as much as they want — and they do. But you’re not allowed to express any degree of hatred or displeasure with the third-worlders who now inhabit this country.

Even when they rob you, you’re not allowed to say anything to them — or else you’re causing “tremendous fear and trauma.” We’re meant to imagine the Somali community huddling together, trembling in fear, paralyzed with grief and trauma, because a tiny blond white woman said a mean word on a playground. 

Indeed, the Somalis of Minnesota were so traumatized that they couldn’t even go to work at their fake autism treatment centers for days afterwards. Which was okay, it turns out, because they don’t actually work at the fake treatment centers. That’s why they’re fake. 

Anyway, this is the impact of a naughty word according to the NAACP — an organization that, according to your history textbooks, was allegedly founded to promote racial equality. Now they want you to suffer criminal consequences if you say words they don’t like. That is, only if you’re white. 

Black people can, of course, continue to say whatever they want, to anyone, using whatever language they want, in whatever context, all the time. There is no single word a black person could ever say that would lead to a court case, much less a conviction. In this country, bad language has apparently been criminalized — but only when that bad language is used by one particular race. 

You should also note that, contrary to what the NAACP implied in their statement, Shiloh Hendrix was not convicted of any crime relating to the child who stole from her.

Instead, she was convicted of disorderly conduct with respect to the Somali adult who decided to harass her on camera after the fact. It’s an incoherent verdict, which is why the NAACP wants to confuse the issue as much as possible. 

So we’re going to go in-depth. We’re going to analyze the trial of Shiloh Hendrix at some length, because it’s easily one of the most important criminal cases in memory. 

The First Amendment protects the most fundamental rights we have. That’s why it’s the “First” Amendment. It’s what separates the United States from almost every other country on the planet — including countries like the UK, Australia and Canada, which share our common law tradition. 

Every other country with any degree of influence has abandoned the right of free expression. So when a court in the United States decides to suspend the First Amendment — when a court decides to make it illegal to offend black people, especially if they’re foreigners — then we have a major, existential problem on our hands. 

This is a problem that demands an immediate response from the federal government, including civil rights investigations into Minnesota officials, and the dramatic acceleration of deportations, particularly in the state of Minnesota. Anything less, and this will fester until we no longer have a Constitution.

To set the stage, we’re going to begin with the now-infamous video of Shiloh Hendrix in the park. Other than the testimony of some barely-literate Somali witnesses, this was the only relevant evidence in the case that the jury was allowed to hear. 

Watch:

Shiloh Hendrix has been found guilty by a MN jury for using a slur against a Somalian who was harassing her: pic.twitter.com/pGN91jDbpW

— TheBlaze (@theblaze) July 24, 2026

Source: @theblaze/X.com

Notice that she does not make any threatening gestures or movements towards anyone. She can’t. She’s holding her own child. She’s unarmed. She doesn’t threaten to harm anyone. 

Instead, a Somali adult begins accosting her, saying she directed a slur against a child who stole her property. The man follows her around and encourages her to repeat the slur several more times, so that he can record it. 

As he puts it, “We’ll see what the internet has to say about you.” And then the interaction comes to an end. There’s no panic in the park. There’s no disruption whatsoever. The whole incident ends in a matter of seconds.

Under the well-established laws of this country, as well as common sense, the woman did not commit any crime at all. But Democrats in Minnesota ordered a prosecution anyway, for the same reason they ordered the prosecution of Derek Chauvin. 

They wanted to send a message that blasphemy against their favored racial groups — and against the Democrats’ open-borders agenda — will not be tolerated. That’s why the judge in the case — Christa M. Daily, who was, of course, appointed by a Democrat — didn’t throw out the charges on First Amendment grounds. That’s what she should’ve done the moment prosecutors announced charges.

Instead, Judge Daily — who, of course, is a white liberal woman — did everything she could to rig the trial so that Hendrix would be convicted. We’ll start with her response to the defense’s motion to dismiss the case.

In her denial of the motion to dismiss, Judge Daily states that “personally directed, inherently abusive language likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction falls outside First Amendment protection.” This is known as the “fighting words” doctrine. The Supreme Court hasn’t upheld a conviction based on this doctrine in 80 years, and for good reason: It’s nonsense. There are no words in the English language that justify the use of violence in response. 

Saying that the n-word is “likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction” would seem to be more of a statement about the group that claims to find the word offensive than it is a statement about the word itself. There are a lot of bad words in the English language. There are a lot of slurs of various kinds. Why would that one particular word be so “likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction”? 

Is it because the offended group is statistically more likely to be violent in general? If that’s the case — and it is — then the answer is not to throw the book at someone saying the word, but rather to throw it at anyone responding violently to it. 

But even if we pretend that the “fighting words” doctrine makes sense, Shiloh’s behavior doesn’t qualify. In her ruling, the judge states that “The defendant directed an extreme racial epithet at both adults and a child, and chased a child, in a confrontational manner. … This is targeted, face-to-face verbal abuse coupled with aggressive physical conduct. … language that is inherently likely to provoke an immediate breach of the peace, particularly when directed at a vulnerable minor and accompanied by pursuit.”

The problem here is obvious: There is no evidence that Shiloh “chased a child” or “pursued a child,” and even if she had, it would obviously be reasonable because the child just stole from her. She wanted to get her stuff back. That’s presumably why she was acquitted of committing any crime with respect to the child. Therefore, there is precisely zero additional conduct by Shiloh, beyond the racial slur, that the judge can point to as evidence that there was “aggressive physical conduct” or anything along those lines.

Nevertheless, the judge continues by stating that “the direct, face-to-face use of highly inflammatory language in a confrontational setting, together with circumstances indicating a foreseeable risk of immediate escalation,” creates a situation where Shiloh Hendrix was using “fighting words.” 

So she loses all of her First Amendment protections because of these alleged aggravating circumstances. Nowhere in this ruling does the judge explain what these “aggravating circumstances” are, with respect to the Somali adult. Even under the “fighting words” doctrine, this prosecution is unconstitutional. So is the verdict. 

You can’t convict someone of using “fighting words” against an adult man simply because she directed a racial slur at him upon his request. The latter fact should have been enough on its own to shoot down any notion of charging Shiloh with a crime. The Somali guy dared Shiloh to say it. He explicitly coaxed it out of her. How can someone be the victim of “fighting words” when they are the ones who prompted the words? 

But Judge Daily, in her jury instructions, continued to push this theory. And she did so in a way that misled the jury and violated the Constitution. For one thing, the judge made sure that the jury instructions did not contain any mention of the First Amendment whatsoever, over the objections of the defense. 

The defense wanted the jury’s instruction to read, “The First Amendment to the United States Constitution limits what speech may constitutionally be punished. Speech alone cannot constitute disorderly conduct unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the words used were fighting words.”

That’s obviously a correct statement of the law. But the judge refused to provide that jury instruction. Even though the jury instructions were 11 pages long, the First Amendment didn’t come up — not a single time. 

Instead, the judge simply asked jurors whether “the defendant engaged 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.”

Specifically, the judge told the jurors: 

If you find that the defendant’s conduct consisted only of offensive, obscene, or abusive language, [then to convict], you must also find that the words used were ‘fighting words.’ Speech is not ‘fighting words’ merely because it is racist. ‘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. The offense may be based upon the utterance of fighting words alone, without resulting in actual violence. The focus is upon the nature of the words and the circumstances in which they were spoken, rather than upon the actual response.

As reported by the independent journalist Tom Hennessy, the jury sent a question to the judge about four hours into their eight-hour deliberation. Hennessy, by the way, was in the courtroom for the entire trial. He’s been on this case since day one, and he’s been in regular contact with Shiloh Hendrix and her husband. He’s easily been their most effective advocate.

He set up her fundraiser, for example, which has been wildly successful. According to Hennessy, the jury wanted to know the definition of “boisterous.” They didn’t get one. So obviously there was confusion over this instruction, and rightfully so. It’s a total mess. 

The instruction sounds like it’s making it illegal to be “boisterous,” which is exactly what it’s doing. The lawyer Laura Powell suggests that maybe the jury thought Shiloh Hendrix had been “boisterous” by giving the Somali the finger, in addition to the slurs. But again, as Powell points out, that wouldn’t rise to the level of criminal conduct either. 

You know this case is a farce and a disgrace when it requires the jury to parse terms like “boisterous” and “fighting words.” These are not legitimate legal concepts. They are adjectives that are entirely subjective and have no objective meaning whatsoever. 

How does one differentiate criminal “boisterousness” from regular boisterousness? How does one separate criminal “fighting words” from just regular mean but not fighting words? The whole thing is absurd. 

So let’s start with what “circumstances” could you imagine, under this instruction, might transform speech into “fighting words”? The attorney Andrew Branca, on his show, has come up with a few examples, based on Minnesota law and previous cases. 

One example might be: If Shiloh Hendrix had clenched her fists and run towards the Somali while dropping the n-bomb, that might make a reasonable person think he’s about to get hit. Or maybe, if she had assembled a mob to surround the guy, or if she was trespassing, or if she kept berating him for an hour, that could qualify. 

But there has to be something beyond the n-bomb itself. There’s no getting around it. Of course, in any of those cases, you wouldn’t need this ridiculous “fighting words” doctrine because the crime would be in the additional conduct — the charging at someone with clenched fists, etc. — and the words she used along with the conduct would be basically irrelevant. 

But once you abandon the idea that Shiloh Hendrix chased anyone — which the jury did — then it’s game over. There is no constitutional basis for convicting Shiloh Hendrix for disorderly conduct with respect to anyone.

There have been decades of federal court rulings on the topic, which FIRE, the free speech organization, has assembled on their website. All the cases show that slurs alone don’t qualify. 

FIRE, by the way, was missing in action on this case. They were obviously aware of it. Tom Hennessy posted emails in which a case number was opened with FIRE. But they didn’t actually support the defense. They posted an article criticizing the verdict after the fact, but they didn’t actually do anything to support Shiloh or defend the First Amendment in this case, which is yet another sign that the Right needs its own ACLU. 

We need an actual, well-funded, serious organization that’s focused on protecting the freedom of speech, and has the balls to jump into the fray on a case like this, where there’s a risk that they might be called racist, God forbid. But if they can’t defend the First Amendment in a case like this, they are completely useless. Period. 

As you saw from the video, the Somali’s response to hearing the n-word was to beg the woman to say it 10 more times, so that he could get her fired from her job. That’s typically what happens in these scenarios — probably because every rap song uses the same kind of language. It’s absurd to try to make the case, under these circumstances, that Shiloh’s words would “inherently” provoke violence in an ordinary person. 

There are no words, at all, that “inherently” provoke violence. The word “inherent” means existing as a natural, inseparable part of something. So to say that the n-word inherently provokes violence is to say that it possesses actual mystical power to conjure violence — causing the person who hears the word to be violent against his own will, like some sort of sorcerer’s curse. It is to suggest, quite explicitly, that a black person who hears this word literally has no choice but to respond with violence. It triggers an instinct, like a bull charging at a red flag. This is the apparent legal theory.

And the judge went out of her way to sell this particular theory to the jury, in a few different ways. For example, while she didn’t instruct the jury about the First Amendment, Judge Daily had a lot to say about the concept of “implicit bias.” 

In case you’re not familiar, “implicit bias” is communist pseudoscience — the idea that everyone is racist against black people, whether they’re aware of it or not. It’s a way to justify various anti-white programs and policies. It has no place being taught in schools, much less courtrooms.

In this case, though, Judge Daily provided the following instruction to the jury:

 At the opening of this case, I instructed you regarding implicit bias. I trust you have kept that instruction in mind as we have conducted this trial. I would like to take this opportunity now to remind you of that instruction: We all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears, and stereotypes about others. Some biases we are aware of and others we might not be fully aware of, which is why they are called ‘implicit’ or ‘unconscious biases.’ No matter how unbiased we think we are, our brains are hardwired to make unconscious decisions. We look at others, and filter what they say, through the lens of our own personal experience and background. Because we all do this, we often see life — and evaluate evidence — in a way that tends to favor people who are like ourselves or who have had life experiences like our own. We can also have biases about people like ourselves.

So she can’t mention the First Amendment — which is foundational to the Constitution, and the key issue in this case — a single time. But she can go on and on, for paragraphs at a time, about a fake concept that was invented by left-wing race hustlers 10 seconds ago. 

This judge needs to be prosecuted, under the standard Democrats have already set. She’s engaged in a conspiracy to deprive Shiloh Hendrix of her constitutional rights. Isn’t that the lingo the Biden administration used to justify throwing Republicans in prison for creating memes about Hillary Clinton? 

If making memes is illegal because it deprives people of their rights, then it’s also illegal for a judge to issue jury instructions like this, as part of a larger effort to suspend the First Amendment. Impeach her and throw her in prison.

To be clear, these jury instructions are just scratching the surface. The more you hear about this judge, the worse it gets. After the conviction, the defense attorney in the case, Brian Karalus, had one of the most justifiable crash-outs I’ve ever seen. He outlined how the judge was aligned with the prosecutors on every issue throughout the trial, and how she allowed the Somali witnesses to dodge his questions by pretending they couldn’t speak English. 

Watch:

Before we continue with the rest of the attorney’s statements — because there’s a lot more — let’s stop here for a second to recap. According to Shiloh Hendrix’s lawyer, the judge ruled that he couldn’t present evidence that the father of the Somali child — Shire Jimale — had lied on the stand. First, the prosecution concealed the father’s name for as long as they could, presumably in order to prevent the defense’s investigator from looking into his background. And then, when the investigator found evidence that the father was lying on the witness stand, the judge didn’t allow the defense to present that evidence.

This is not some trivial detail. If a witness in the case has a financial incentive to present a certain narrative, then the jury should know about it. And certainly, if the witness denies having any financial incentive, and there’s evidence to the contrary, there’s no reason to hide that information from the jury. 

Yes, Shiloh Hendrix raised hundreds of thousands of dollars with GiveSendGo. But she didn’t testify in the case as a witness. And her fundraiser wasn’t a secret, in any event. What this Somali did, according to the defense attorney, is very different. And the jury should’ve known about it.

According to the various news reports I’ve seen, the judge threatened to hold this attorney in contempt of court during the trial. But she never even suggested that she might hold Shire Jimale in contempt for saying he couldn’t understand the questions from the defense lawyers. 

Note that the Somali who shot the video of Shiloh Hendrix has been in Somalia for some time. The prosecution’s main witnesses were Shire Jimale and a police officer. Yes, the person who was supposedly victimized by Shiloh Hendrix didn’t even testify. He fled the country months ago. Shiloh’s basic right to face her accuser, like her basic right to free speech, was unceremoniously taken away. And all along, throughout the trial, no one in the local media reported on any of this.

But Tom Hennessy, the independent journalist I mentioned earlier, was paying attention. He shot this photograph after the second day of the trial, when both of the prosecutors appeared outside the courthouse with Shire Jimale, their star witness:

Photo credit: Tom Hennessey

And as you can see, he apparently has no problem talking to the prosecutors without a translator, much less two translators, which he supposedly needed during the trial. It’s miraculous. This Somali was somehow magically infused with the ability to speak English conversationally as he emerged from the courthouse doors and walked outside.

It’s like watching those people who claim they need a wheelchair before a flight so they get priority boarding, and then when the plane lands, suddenly they can walk perfectly fine. It’s just a total scam, right out in public. Which is what we’ve come to expect from Somalis. 

Incidentally, as if this story isn’t enough of a farce, Hennessy also found that Shire Jimale obtained a commercial driver’s license, first to drive a truck and now a bus. CDLs require English proficiency. So, as Hennessy puts it, everything about this situation is a scam, from every direction. 

Hennessy told one of my producers that “Shire was a disaster on the stand, it was like bizarre world … he lied under oath multiple times. Lied about what he said during the first interview with police (10 days after the incident), lied about what Shiloh did (I thought she was going to hit/strike/rumble with my son), lied about not being involved in ANY FUNDRAISER.” And the jury apparently appeared as baffled as everyone else, according to Hennessy.

So you can see why the defense attorney is furious. The whole trial was a sham from the start. The attorney stood outside the courthouse for 15 minutes after this verdict, and as the press conference continued, it became more and more heated. He also talked about additional Somali GoFundMes that his investigator found. 

Suffice it to say, most of the reporters were extremely hostile and condescending toward the defense attorney during the press conference. One of the local news outlets actually did a segment where they tried to prove the attorney wrong by researching the rules of evidence concerning Rule 901, which the lawyer just mentioned in the video. They thought it would be a segment where they called his bluff. But they ended up reporting that he was right. 

Watch:

If you’re confused by this, here’s the explanation we received from Tom Hennessy. In Minnesota, Rule 901 governs the standards for the admissibility of certain evidence. The rule states that evidence, at a minimum, must be “sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what it is purported to be.” It’s a very lax standard. And it applies to both the prosecution and defense. 

For example, at one point during the trial, the prosecution introduced a Google Maps depiction of the park where this incident occurred. And the judge had no problem with that. There was no question as to whether the Google Maps page was faked somehow. The assumption was that it’s real, and the burden shifts to the other side to dispute it with some evidence of their own, if they choose to do so.

But when the defense team questioned Shire Jimale, and he kept denying that he was running a fundraiser, the judge wouldn’t allow the defense to introduce the GoFundMe page as evidence. So the defense lawyers weren’t allowed to contradict Shire Jimale and prove he was lying on the stand. 

Jimale was committing perjury, which the defense could easily prove, but they weren’t allowed to prove it. The judge kept questioning how the defense team could prove the GoFundMe page was real. There were discussions about whether GoFundMe engineers needed to be called in, and so on. 

Under the very lax standard of Rule 901, the defense should have been able to introduce evidence of this GoFundMe. But the judge stated, incorrectly, that Rule 901 only works for the benefit of the prosecution. She applied a higher standard to the defense.  Again, it’s as corrupt as a trial could possibly be. And the moment the news stations looked into it, they found that the lawyer was correct.

You’d think these local news stations would report on the judge’s rulings on their own, without the defense lawyer shaming them into it. If they were actual journalists, they’d tell their audience what the judge was doing inside that courtroom. They’d let their audience know that the whole trial was a farce. 

But as we all know, most of these outlets are aligned with the Democrat establishment in Minnesota. They’re also completely incompetent. So we’re left with extremely inadequate coverage, with the exception of Hennessy’s reporting.

For BLM activists and other Leftists, these mainstream outlets are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do. If you watch most of this media coverage, you’ll come up with the idea that Shiloh Hendrix was indeed guilty of committing a crime. And black activists are taking advantage of that coverage. 

Watch:

That’s the YouTuber “Amazing Lucas,” by the way, who presumably earned that nickname because of his amazing ability to breathe and tie his shoes, despite having the IQ of a dandelion. Well, I actually don’t know if he can tie his shoes. He might very well wear Velcro. But he can breathe, at least, apparently. 

In any case, this is the level of argumentation we get from black activists who are desperate to explain why it’s okay to send white people to court and convict them of crimes for saying words that make black people sad and give them tummy aches. 

And because this blabbering toad is too dumb to even construct a semi-convincing straw man, he is actually arguing that nobody would support the free speech rights of someone who used an anti-Jewish slur. 

The problem with this argument is that, of course, people use anti-Jewish slurs all the time — Amazing Lucas, a YouTuber, has somehow apparently never become acquainted with the internet — and yet literally none of Shiloh’s defenders, myself included, have ever called for the people who use such slurs to be charged with crimes. 

I would absolutely defend the free speech rights of anyone to use any slur, anti-Jewish, anti-black, or anti-anything else. If Amazing Lucas can amaze us by providing even one single example of a right-winger who defended Shiloh Hendrix while advocating for the criminalization of anti-Jewish slurs, I’d be fascinated to see it. But he can’t, and he won’t, and he doesn’t need to, because low-effort race hustlers like this guy are playing to a semi-literate audience of barely sentient bottom feeders who couldn’t care less about facts or evidence, and don’t have the mental capacity to process them anyway.

His only argument is that the Trump administration has tried to deport foreign nationals based (in part) on their speech. For example, if someone from Pakistan is on a student visa, and they start chanting “Death to America” or “Death to Israel” or whatever, the administration might deport them. There have been a few cases along those lines. 

But that’s a very different situation because, first of all, those people aren’t citizens. They’re not Americans. They are guests in this country. This is not their home. And secondly, the president has absolute authority over immigration matters. If you’re a guest in this country, and you make it clear that you lied on your visa application, then you can get deported. If your actions make it obvious that you’re here to cause trouble, and not study at a university, then you can get deported. And we’re not talking about criminal prosecutions here — we’re talking about deportations. And the United States has the right to deport foreigners who aren’t citizens. Period. 

So in every relevant respect, these deportations are nothing like the Shiloh Hendrix case. There is no analogy to draw here. But let’s put all of that to the side. Let’s put to the side the fact that the argument is completely retarded and wrong and misses the point at every imaginable level. 

If you do think it’s a perfectly analogous situation, then you should be the first in line to come out in support of Shiloh Hendrix. If you think that foreign nationals have the free speech right to do and say whatever they want here, and we aren’t even allowed to deport them, much less charge them with crimes, then you should certainly support the free speech rights of actual citizens of this country. 

And yet people like Mediocre Lucas here won’t speak up in Shiloh’s defense. In fact, they want to see her behind bars. Because, as it turns out, they believe that foreign nationals have more free speech rights in our country than actual citizens of our country. 

That’s how catastrophically stupid, insane, and evil these halfwits actually are.

That’s why we’re getting videos like this one. 

Watch:

You can look at the comments on this video, and you’ll see that every single one of them says the same thing: They all want Shiloh Hendrix to go to prison. They all believe the punishment wasn’t enough. 

Put simply, none of these people care about the First Amendment, or the rule of law, how the trial was conducted, or any of that. This is pure racial tribalism on display. These are the same kinds of people who donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Karmelo Anthony, solely because he murdered a white kid in cold blood. 

Again, if you import the third world, then you’re also importing third-world attitudes. You get third-world “justice” and third-world race hate. And now it’s all over social media. No one can ignore it anymore. We are dealing with people who believe Karmelo Anthony had the right to stab a kid in the chest, but Shiloh Hendrix did not have the right to say a word. 

And the one single deciding factor for these people is race. It’s very simple for them. A black person has the right to do literally anything they want, up to and including murder. A white person does not have the right to do literally anything that a black person finds displeasing. That’s what they believe. It’s what they truly, earnestly believe. 

And now their insane, racist viewpoint is being enforced by law in what used to be the American court system.

On that basis alone, the prosecution of Shiloh Hendrix is unconstitutional. It’s an Equal Protection Violation, in addition to everything else. In this country, you can enforce the laws equally, or you can’t enforce them at all. 

The reason they want to suppress Shiloh Hendrix’s speech, above all, is that she was expressing righteous outrage about the disastrous effects of the third-world invasion in this country. She observed that, when you flood a mostly-white state with Somalis, you get dysfunction. You get theft. You get ethnic feuds. You get fraud. Everything gets nastier and less pleasant — including your parks and even your press conferences. 

They’ve concluded that the only way they can stop Americans from saying we’ve had enough is to prosecute us for saying it. But the reason this case is going to get overturned — and the reason it’s been a PR disaster for the Left — is that they badly underestimated the level of fight that Americans have in them. 

These are the Americans who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for her defense, including Brian Karalus, who’s clearly going to fight this corruption to the end. They’re Americans like Tom Hennessy. 

Despite the Somali takeover of large portions of Minnesota, it’s clear from this case there are enough fighters left to resist these tyrants and foreign invaders. 

Now’s the time for everyone else — particularly all the commentators and “free speech organizations” that have been sitting on the sidelines during this case — to join the fight with everything they have. 

This is the single most important free speech case of a generation. We need to win it, or there won’t be any free speech cases ever again.