The criterion disorderly is more subjective than impacts with vehicles. Yes, people can lie about both, but people can actually see a clear film of disorderly conduct and intelligent people can have differences, even if every single significant act is readily visible on camera. Intelligent people with a really good video of someone getting hit by a car are much less likely to disagree.
Used to be saying fuck you to the police got you arrested and convicted, often as a breach of the peace or disorderly conduct. But then courts decided this was covered by free speech. Still, it’s not a great idea to say it, since you still stand a good chance of getting arrested, even if your case will get thrown out.
I found the video. Not any part with the child, but her interacting with the camera man. He was filming her and in part of the exchange followed after her. She never seemed threatening. She did give the finger. She did use racial slurs. Honestly I don’t see disorderly conduct. That’s the part she was convicted for: the interaction with the cameraman. She was acquitted for her interaction with the child.
I could see police using the same criteria as that to move in and start arresting people in all sorts of situations where we really don’t want them to. I did not see her as a danger or escalating.
She’s an asshole. And a racist. Society has a lot of social methods to punish that kind of behavior and I am sure it has punished her and will continue to.
She was not arrested there at the playground, I assume, from the video.
But I don’t like the state having the power to call that behavior disorderly. If she got enraged up into his face. If he could reasonably expect violence, now we would be moving into potential disorderly conduct. I just don’t see it.
I’m not upset that she ended up with negative consequences. But I think if that’s disorderly conduct, we just gave the state a lot of power to go after people they don’t like. We gave individual police the go ahead to interpret fairly calm behavior and short term offensive but not particularly aggressive behavior as a crime. I think if that became the rule it would cause a lot of problems and problems for minorities and other oppressed groups as much as anyone else if not more so.
I did not precise if she was convicted for the kid or the cameraman, because I did not know the exact verdict. The agressive behavior was still verbal I guess, so what I said still stands. She insulted someone and was convicted for that.
You think we should be arrested for insulting people?
But no, that’s not why she was convicted. She was convicted for disorderly conduct with the cameraman. I watched the video and I would not have felt threatened in his shoes and I think it’s a bad precedent. She looked calm to me. I can see difference of opinion on that and wrote some of my thoughts above to Carleas on that issue. But she was not convicted for insulting someone.
I have explained many messages above that what she did was not an ordinary insult. She used the n-word, which for the black community is triggering. She lunched fundraising for relocation, which shows that she fully understood that her actions can bring massive violence. I argued that the disorderly conduct is also for prevention of triggering extensive violence from people who feel strongly insulted.
Sorry for not re-explaining all these in the last message, but it is tiring to repeat the same things in every post.
And according to the article I read, she was not arrested, she did not go to jail, she paid 1000 dollars fine. At the same time, she received 900000 dollars in donations. Sorry for not empathizing with a Karen that insults the black community and gets paid for that.
It’s a woman’s name. A label to silence and shame women who complain about ‘anything’ and take away their voice, the modern day version of the ‘scold’s bridle’ torture device of the Middle Ages. There is no equivalent label for men.
A “male Karen” is an entitled, demanding man who reacts with anger or calls the police over minor inconveniences. While the internet has no single agreed-upon name, common suggestions include Kevin, Ken, Chad, or Greg.
I really don’t think this is similar. A law forbidding people from getting in each others’ faces and screaming obscenities at each other isn’t the same as forcing all women to never contradict men in positions of authority.
And thats where you already failed the entire and complete concept because who finds what offensive is maximally subjective.
Especially in 2026 when society has been polarized into literal insanity where people are getting reprimanded, fired, sued and worse for things like dead naming or playing the wrong video game, this stance should be borderline nonsensical.
Your mere existence is insulting to certain people even before you’d open your mouth to articulate your opinions, so creating laws based on whats insulting or offensive is the equivalent of being clinically insane.. Thats first.
Second: Free speech by its very definition aims to maintain and uphold the rights of speech you dislike. Why? Cause speech you like needs no protections to begin with.
Someone found charlie kirk expressing his opinions and debating ideas so offensive that they killed him for it, and then a third of that shait country decided to celebrate it. So no. Refer to the above.
Shiloh Hendrix was the victim. She expressed her very justifiable anger and frustration due to repeatedly warning a child who then still reached into her bag and proceeded to steal her stuff.
She was not randomly going around calling people names and creating a scene. She was the victim of the scene.
This is your standard here:
Fighting words → We gonna punish you even if we need to destroy the concept of free speech for it
Lack of parenting, oversight of guardian, child endangerment and theft → Just ignore it cause the subject had a certain skin color
To say that your priorities and logic is ASS backwards, is an understatement.
No. This is YOUR subjective standard.
There are thousands of trans radicals and liberals who’d view your claim of how trans women should not partake in women’s sports as an attempt to erase their rights, and would literally take your stance as pro genocide (no, not exaggerating)
In conclusion they would mark you as someone who needs to be killed for your speech just like Charlie Kirk.
So again refer to the above. Whats offensive is completely subjective, and the moment you step into this arena, you are fucked. You are arguing for and playing a game that will undermine free speech as an entry fee.
You dont need to utter a single word. The mere fact hat you are taking part in this argument underscores that free speech is up for debated on emotional and subjective grounds.
Doesnt matter.
Your entire logic is completely self destructive starting from the very moment you decided to condemn the victim of the situation because words have more priority to you than ANY of the other involved events that took place ranging from theft to the lack of a supervising parent thus child endagerment.
If your priority is (as per your definition of fighting words and disorderly conduct) to prevent disorder, then your target in the Shiloh case should be self-evident.
Its the child and the parent who instigated the event.
OR
At a bare minimum the reprimand should be two sided and both sides should face the music.
However. Do you know what the offending child and parent received?
Oh thats right
Absolutely nothing.
They werent reprimanded
They werent charged
There is nothing
So pardon me when i say that in conclusion:
a.) Your standards and logic is FULLY self-defeating
b.) Your disposition in the event is completely devoid of any objectivity
You are arguing for punishing a victim who said something in anger because her anger is breach of peace, meanwhile you conveniently disregard the people who PHYSICALLY broke the law and peace, and started off the event.
No.
Sorry.
Your argument is completely invalid.
The moment you set peace keeping and public order as your premise and then proceeded to ignore that priority completely, you folded and erased the foundation for everything you wanted to say and argue.
Every law is capable of having false accusers abuse it. You haven’t explained what’s special about this law regarding false abusers.
Should we take the law of “it’s a crime to muder” off the law books because I could falsely accuse you of having murdered by Grandmother? Because false accusations of murder have also happened…
Can you write a coherent point about how false accusations are relevant for this law in particular?
What does interpretation have to do with false accusations? Even if everyone agreed on what disorderly means, there could still be false accusations. Doesn’t seem related.
