Due Process for Some, Consequences for Others:
The Shiloh Hendricks Case
By: Vix Burgett-Prunty
The case of Shiloh Hendricks, the woman who went viral for shouting racial slurs at a 5-year-old Black child, has sparked yet another debate about free speech, due process, and who gets to claim victimhood in America. What’s revealing isn’t just the incident itself, but the way certain political factions have rushed to defend her, framing her backlash as an issue of "cancel culture" and "unfair persecution."
This defense would be easier to take seriously if the same people now championing Hendricks’ right to "due process" hadn’t spent years cheering when due process was ignored for others. The Trump administration, along with its most vocal supporters, has a long history of dismissing fairness when it suits them, only to suddenly demand it when one of their own faces consequences.
Take immigration, for example. The same crowd now arguing that Hendricks deserves sympathy had no problem with families being separated at the border, often without proper hearings or recourse. They supported zero-tolerance policies that bypassed due process entirely, yet now they act as though public backlash against a woman caught on video harassing a child is some kind of injustice.
Or consider the rhetoric around January 6 defendants. Many of Hendricks’ defenders have also been quick to demand harsh, preemptive punishments for those arrested in connection with the Capitol riot, long before trials were completed. But when it comes to Hendricks, the script flips. Now, they insist on patience, fairness, and the presumption of innocence.
Then there’s the free speech argument. Hendricks’ supporters claim her racist tirade is just "words" and that she shouldn’t face consequences for it. But these are often the same people who have no issue with book bans, restrictions on teaching about racism in schools, or corporations firing employees for political expression they disagree with. Free speech, in their view, only seems to apply when it’s speech they like.
The most glaring contradiction, though, is the idea that Hendricks is somehow the victim here. She’s raised over $250,000 in donations, effectively being rewarded for her behavior, while the child she targeted gets no such sympathy. If anything, the reaction to this case shows how deeply skewed the concept of victimhood has become in certain circles. Consequences for racism are treated as an overreach, while actual racism is downplayed or excused.
At its core, this isn’t really about principles like free speech or due process. It’s about who gets protection and who gets punished. The same movement that dismisses systemic inequality, mocks empathy, and fights against accountability for powerful figures suddenly discovers the importance of fairness, but only when it’s one of their own in the spotlight.
The Hendricks case is just one example, but it’s part of a much larger pattern. The question isn’t whether people should be allowed to say horrible things, they are, under the First Amendment. The question is why some people get a lucrative sympathy campaign when they do, while others get crushed without a second thought. And that double standard says more about our politics than any viral video ever could.
VIDEO TW
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/who-is-shiloh-hendricks-woman-creates-givesendgo-after-racial-slur-video-viral-101746158141210.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKCI5tleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHtuafiw4F9d8qitHwxLRkExydHYE8QaJ9EkSIoSZm3DIZouSZ7zd_Vr0xRvf_aem_KgzISrZbGjssOhdnDC21RA