My Fundamental Freedoms &
How I Choose to Exercise Them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-United States Constitution, First Amendment
The First Amendment Protects My Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech
01
This Nation's founders believed that "liberty to be the secret of happiness & courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will & to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery & spread of political truth; that without free speech & assembly discussion would be futile.... [I]t is hazardous to discourage thought, hope & imagination; [f]ear breeds repression; [r]epression breeds hate; [h]ate menaces stable government; [t]he path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances & proposed remedies; and [t]he fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” 3
​
One of the most important reasons why I have created the memoir pages is to speak the truth about my character - as a woman, generally, & as a mother, in particular, to speak the truth about what my children & I have experienced as the result of abuse & misconduct, & to express my views & opinions about those experiences. Under the First, I am free to tell the truth & to express my ideas & opinions, without fear, more broadly than I could with individual speech alone by publicizing & disseminating my speech across a variety of mediums - like my website's memoir pages.
02
The First Amendment Protects My Fundamental Right to Freedom of Press
Freedom of the press serves an important purpose in our free society because it ensures that government officials are held accountable for their actions by allowing the public to know about what they are & are not doing with the power & funding they would not have access to but for their position. This right has been repeatedly recognized as one of the essential freedoms protected under the First as it protects the public against the spread of misinformation & disinformation & the suppression of important truths. 1
​
"The purpose of the speech & press clause, has evidently been to protect parties in the free publication of matters of public concern, to secure their right to a free discussion of public events & public measures, & to enable every citizen at any time to bring the government & any person in authority to the bar of public opinion by any just criticism upon their conduct in the exercise of the authority which the people have conferred upon them.... The evils to be prevented were not the censorship of the press merely, but any action of the government by means of which it might prevent such free & general discussion of public matters as seems absolutely essential to prepare the people for an intelligent exercise of their rights as citizens." 2
The First Amendment Protects My Fundamental Right to Freedom of Assembly.
03
The First Amendment allows individuals to gather peacefully in public places, socially, politically, or for other reasons, including in protest, for the purpose of expressing their views & advocating for change. As long as those gathered do so gather in a peaceful & positive manner, there is very little regulation that may be imposed upon them by the government. 11
My desire to express my views about dealing with very serious issues like domestic violence, stalking, discrimination, & official misconduct & to advocate for change in how we, as a society, view these problems & the victims who suffer because of them, is an important, positive, & legitimate reason to encourage peaceful assembly through the publication of my website & the dissemination of its content. Even if the subject-matter is not inherently "positive" or "peaceful," my motives are. All too often, when victims seek help, their complaints are dismissed as nothing but nonsense & they are told to just "get over it." This only perpetuates the problem, it is something i have experienced firsthand, & the reason for telling my story is to protest against this kind of dismissal. Hence the name of my company, "Kein Unsinn" which literally translates to "no nonsense" in German. These are complex & unsettling problems that have plagued our society for long enough due to a fundamental lack of understanding. We have to gather, we have to acknowledge the ugly truth, & we have to talk about it, if we ever want anything to change. This website is meant to be a place where we can do that; a place where individuals can share their own experiences, without fear of being judged, or criticized, or worse, treated as if they are "crazy" just because they decided to speak up & say I do not deserve to be treated this way. The ability to this free from government interference is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the First.
04
The First Amendment Protects My Fundamental Right to Raise Grievances Against, & Seek Redress for Wrongs from, the Government.
I have the fundamental right to freely & publicly discuss the stewardship of the government & public officials my children & I have encountered & my criticisms of their outrageous misconduct are protected under the First Amendment. 15
"A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative & challenging. It may strike at prejudices & preconceptions & have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute,... is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." 8
​
Without question my words will certainly stir people to anger, induce unrest, & create dissatisfaction. At least I hope so, that is my goal. I have consistently tried, for years now, to get someone to do something about the egregious injustices my children & I have experienced & not only have I been refused every time, I have also been mocked & punished for it, & things just got worse. I am stirred. I am angry. I am... dissatisfied, to say the least. I mean to challenge. I mean to provoke. That should not be considered to be in dispute. But my unwavering desire to merely speak the truth about the inherent wrongs my children & I have been subjected to is not some "substantive evil."
05
Speech not protected under the First Amendment will not be Tolerated.
It is a fundamental principle of the Free Speech Clause that speech cannot be banned or regulated just because it is unfavorable, offensive, trifling, or annoying, to some. 16 According to the Supreme Court of the United States, only a few areas of speech may be regulated under the First Amendment, such as obscenity, defamation, fraud, fighting words, incitement, & speech integral to criminal conduct. ________. These are the types of utterances that are not necessary or beneficial to the exposition of ideas & that are of no value to our societal interest in order & morality. 12
Although my website contains content riddled with speech not protected under the First, it is not mine. Rather, it is speech that has been directed towards me, my children, & the public over & over & over again. In my efforts to combat the wrongs done towards my family, these things must be addressed & brought to light, so I am. I am a human being, just like everyone else. I have basic human rights, just like everyone else. MY CHILDREN ARE HUMAN BEINGS WITH BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE but we have not been treated as such, so I am doing something about it & I am speaking out. Regardless of who it bothers or makes look....very bad, nothing contained on this website can be considered unprotected speech. I seek to incite no crime. I offer threat to no one. I use no false filter. The matters that could have been considered private, protected, or confidential have already been made public by others & they have been twisted & manipulated to cast a false light upon me & my family. Everything published &/or disseminated on my website is materially relevant & supported by credible evidence.
​
It can be reasonably argued that the government has a legitimate interest, concomitant to my own, in correcting the record to ensure it reflects the truth about the facts and circumstances, for a variety of reasons. __________.
06
The First Amendment Protects My Fundamental Right to Freedom from Interference, Retaliation, or Punishment.
Government regulation of free speech must be reasonable & non-discriminatory. This means there must be a neutral reason for wanting to impose restrictions upon them. 13 The government "must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest & is narrowly drawn to achieve that end." 14 Even in the context of pending litigation, publications criticizing the judiciary that might discredit or influence a decision subsequently made will not justify punishment unless it creates an atmosphere that is incompatible with rational, impartial adjudication. 6 But in the absence of evidence showing a "substantive evil actually designed to impede the course of justice," no clear & present danger is posed. 9
While disclosure of private, confidential, &/or privileged information is prohibited under certain laws. Under the Privacy Act, many courts have held that there can be no disclosure of information that has already been made public record by another. 17 ​
​​
Nothing contained on this website could be reasonably said to impede justice in that evidence of the true facts & circumstances is necessary to ensure impartiality & rationality of any judicial decisions made about the issues I address in my content. Particularly when so many falsehoods, fabrications, & misrepresentations is all that has been relied upon to justify everything that has taken place thus far. In fact, since the content contained on my website was included directly in response to the outrageous, criminal, defamatory, & fraudulent conduct of my abuser, his associates, & government officials, it is imperative that my fundamental right to freely speak the truth is not subjected to unjustified regulation so that I am able to do my duty as a mother to protect my children's safety & well-being & so that I am able to protect myself from any further cruel & unusual punishment.
References
1. See Rock the Vote. "Freedom of the Press: An Explainer." (April 25, 2025). Retrieved October 4, 2025 from https://www.rockthevote.org/explainers/freedom-of-the-press/#:~:text=The%20freedom%20to%20report%20news,held%20accountable%20for%20their%20actions.
​
2. 2 T. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Powers of the States of the American Union 885-86 (8th ed. 1927).
​
3. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Justice Brandeis concurring) (condensed).
​
4. Frohwerk v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 215-16 (1919).
​
5. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 263 (1941).
​
6. Id. at 271.
​
7. Whitney, Supra. at 376.
​
8. Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1949) (Justice Douglas, writing for majority).
​
9. See Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962) (Chief Justice Warren).
​
10. Chaplinsky v. New Hamsphire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
​
11. See "Freedom of Assembly." The First Amendment: What you need to know. Freedom Forum. (2025). Retrieved October 4, 2025, from https://www.freedomforum.org/freedom-of-assembly/#:~:text=but%20those%20limits%20must%20be,actions%20negatively%20affect%20government%20operations.
​
12. Chaplinksky, Supra. at 571-72.
​
13. See Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosle, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). See also Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 208-12 (1975); First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 445 (1980); Metromedia v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) (plurality opinion); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984).
​
14. Ark. Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 231 (1987).
​
15. New York v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273-76 (1964).
​
16. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391 (1992).
​
17. See, e.g., Hoffman v. Rubin, 193 F.3d 959, 966(8th Cir. 1999)(finding no Privacy Act violation where agency disclosed same information in letter to journalist that plaintiff himself had previously provided to journalist; plaintiff “waiv[ed], in effect, his protection under the Privacy Act”); Quinn v. Stone, 978 F.2d 126, 134 (3d Cir. 1992) (dictum); Kline v. HHS, 927 F.2d 522, 524 (10th Cir. 1991); Hollis v. Army, 856 F.2d 1541, 1545 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Reyes v. DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1096 n.1 (1st Cir. 1987); Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328, 1341 (9th Cir. 1987); Pellerin v. VA, 790 F.2d 1553, 1556 (11th Cir. 1986); FDIC v. Dye, 642 F.2d 833, 836 (5th Cir. 1981); Ash v. United States, 608 F.2d 178, 179 (5th Cir. 1979); Mudd v. Army, No. 2:05-cv-137, 2007 WL 4358262, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2007)(finding no “disclosure” because by time agency posted statement on its web site, plaintiff had been quoted in newspaper saying he received letter of admonishment, another newspaper article had referred to letter, and plaintiff had testified before Congress regarding letter; also finding no “disclosure” of report because at time agency provided link to report on its web site, “the entire [report] had been the subject of a press release and news conference by a separate and independent agency . . . and had been released to the media by the same”); Schmidt v. VA, 218 F.R.D. 619, 630 (E.D. Wis. 2003) (“defin[ing] the term ‘disclose’ to mean the placing into the view of another information which was previously unknown”); Barry v. DOJ, 63 F. Supp. 2d 25, 26-28 (D.D.C. 1999); Sullivan v. USPS, 944 F. Supp. 191, 196 (W.D.N.Y. 1996); Loma Linda Cmty. Hosp. v. Shalala, 907 F. Supp. 1399, 1404-05 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (commenting that policy underlying Privacy Act protecting confidential information from disclosure not implicated by release of information health care provider had already received through patients’ California “Medi-Cal” cards); Viotti v. Air Force, 902 F. Supp. 1331, 1337 (D. Colo. 1995), aff’d, 153 F.3d 730 (10th Cir. 1998) (unpublished table decision); Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. 1562, 1571 (N.D. Ga. 1995), aff’d per curiam, No. 95-9489 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 1997); Kassel v. VA, 709 F. Supp. 1194, 1201 (D.N.H. 1989); Krowitz v. USDA, 641 F. Supp. 1536, 1545 (W.D. Mich. 1986), aff’d, 826 F.2d 1063 (6th Cir. 1987) (unpublished table decision); Owens v. MSPB, No. 3-83-0449-R, slip op. at 2-3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 1983) (mailing of agency decision affirming employee’s removal to his former attorney held not “disclosure” because “attorney was familiar with facts of [employee’s] claim” and “no new information was disclosed to him”); Golliher v. USPS, 3 Gov’t Disclosure Serv. ¶ 83,114, at 83,702 (N.D. Ohio June 10, 1982); King v. Califano, 471 F. Supp. 180, 181 (D.D.C. 1979); Harper v. United States, 423 F. Supp. 192, 197 (D.S.C. 1976); cf. Pippinger v. Rubin, 129 F.3d 519, 532-33 (10th Cir. 1997) (finding no evidence that disclosure “could possibly have had ‘an adverse effect’” on plaintiff where recipient “had been privy to every event described in [plaintiff’s] records at the time the event occurred”); Leighton v. CIA, 412 F. Supp. 2d 30, 39 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Hollis and expressing doubt as to whether disclosure at issue “has presented any new information to those in the intelligence community”); Jones v. Runyon, 32 F. Supp. 2d 873, 876 (N.D. W. Va. 1998) (although finding disclosure to credit reporting service valid under routine use exception, concluding information disclosed was already in possession of recipient and other courts had held that Privacy Act is not violated in such cases), aff’d, 173 F.3d 850 (4th Cir. 1999) (unpublished table decision).
​
