Karen Cook Fonseca ‘fka’ Karen Marie Lev ‘fka’ Karen Marie Cook
This women was indicted by the Grand Jury in Felony Fraud Charges. The First Amendment protects people from governmental retaliation for most of the things they say, but it doesn’t shield them from what happens when that speech goes viral and inflames other people.
This sad excuse for a mother has stated she was targeted and cyberbullied by a sheriff because of her profane anti-Trump sticker says she’s “not backing down” and is considering filing a lawsuit.
“It seems that Fonseca has lost touch with reality. She was her own worst enemy, put the target on her own back by displaying such trash”
I’m not saying that we’ve not seen the similar stickers about prior Presidents, but this one takes the cake. You’ve singled out any and all Trump supporters and you’ve very publicly and clearly told us to go fuck ourselves. You don’t like Trump that’s fine, must mean he’s doing something right but to have the gull to disrespect your fellow citizens, I’ll be damned if you’re going to disrespect me.
Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire held that a criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of “fighting words” does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.
CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
What’s considered “fighting words” you ask?
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their veryChaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire held that a criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of “fighting words” does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment.
CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
What’s considered “fighting words” you ask?
The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fighting words are written or spoken words intended to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.
In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.” utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are among the “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem.”
City of Whitefish v. O’SHAUGHNESSY states
Threatening profane, and obscene words, said without a disarming smile, are generally considered to be `fighting words’
City of Whitefish v. O’SHAUGHNESSY
Check back later for a link to the documents related to her criminal charges.
Americans Against Idiocracy 