Posted on 09/22/2004 4:42:59 AM PDT by Allosaurs_r_us
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) A federal judge Tuesday declined a request from the ACLU to stop the Omaha World-Herald from naming an atheist who sued over a Ten Commandments monument displayed in a public park.
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf said there was no proof the restraint was appropriate.
In a statement, the man said if his name is revealed, he would consider moving his family from Plattsmouth because his life has been threatened. The city is south of Omaha. The ACLU said it would have to speak to the man before deciding the next move.
The ACLU filed suit in 2001 on behalf of the man, alleging the monument violates the First Amendment and Supreme Court rulings on the separation of church and state.
At trial, the judge agreed with the ACLU, saying the monument ``conveys a message that Christianity and Judaism are favored religions.'' The ruling was appealed, and was argued last week before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Tim Butz, director of the Nebraska ACLU, acknowledged the curious position in which its request for a restraining order placed the group on the other side of a free-speech argument.
``For the ACLU to be in court on something like this, at first blush, seems to be ironic or hypocritical,'' Butz said. ``If we had won, it would have been bittersweet, at best.''
Butz said the ACLU sought the order only because that's what the client wanted.
Before trial, a federal magistrate granted the ACLU's request to let the case proceed without naming the man because of the threats against him. The order applied only to the lawyers and those involved in the case.
The ACLU asked Kopf to extend the order beyond the courtroom.
``Lives are at stake,'' ACLU attorney Amy Miller told Kopf.
World-Herald attorney Michael Cox said, however, that sealed evidence presented to the court shows ``the cat is out of the bag. Everybody knows who it is.'' He said he doesn't know if the newspaper would reveal the man's name.
Larry King, executive editor of the World-Herald, said the man thrust himself into the public eye by bringing the lawsuit. ``If you want to change public policy, it should not be a surprise that you could be publicly identified,'' he said.
Buh bye coward.
Oh, yeah... the ACLU was pretty outraged about that, weren't they?
No guts, no glory.
Moving out of town is a small price to pay for disrupting the community pattern of life.
Thet's why SanFrancisco is allowed to exist..... a haven for malcontents.
According to the news this morning, the judge ruled against the ACLU. He said there was no compelling reason to keep the mans name secret. No word on whether the ACLU will appeal, but they probably will.
I am so sick of the ACLU. Had this been the other side, they would have sued to get the name released citing Freedom of Information or the Right to know the accuser. And why does an atheist care about a plaque in city park. If you are going to make a stand, don't do it in private. Be a man.
It's time for the good Americans to start working to bring the ACLU down! In fact, it's long past time!!
This is abusurd. The man just wants to damage this country. In somewhat similar case in Virginia, a group of illegal aliens wanted to sue colleges to get favored treatment and at the same time wanted to remain anonymous. Their request was also denied.
"I am so sick of the ACLU. Had this been the other side, they would have sued to get the name released citing Freedom of Information or the Right to know the accuser. And why does an atheist care about a plaque in city park. If you are going to make a stand, don't do it in private. Be a man."
Truth is not their friend, interesting who it is who funds them, and they have an endless supply of money and endless line of workers.
Also consider who the attack is really against, "Ten Commandments monument", who authored those commandments? Man's response should not be their concern, but hey as it is written there isn't anything new under the sun.
Actually if you think about it the ten commandments are nothing more tha a moral guidline to follow. I don't think it really matters who wrote them they are just pretty much a good way to live. Anyone who thinks or tries to to make it a religious argument probably has the morals of a pedophile.
"Actually if you think about it the ten commandments are nothing more tha a moral guidline to follow. I don't think it really matters who wrote them they are just pretty much a good way to live. Anyone who thinks or tries to to make it a religious argument probably has the morals of a pedophile."
Really now you know alot about pedhphiles?
obviously you don't since you can't spell it!
What the H is that supposed to mean anyway? That they have morals? Am I to take it you are defending them? Are you sure you are on the right web sight?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.