The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) filed suit in a California federal district court yesterday against the city of Rancho Cucamonga (CA). The complaint (full text) alleges that the city violated the Establishment Clause and free speech guaranties when its actions led a sign company to remove a billboard ad that had been paid for by FFRF. The city passed on to the sign company a number of complaints from the public about the billboard that read "Imagine No Religion." (See prior posting.) The complaint argues that city, by its actions, gave the appearance of endorsing religion and interfered with speech on the basis of its content. FFRF issued a release yesterday announcing the filing of the lawsuit, and yesterday's Contra Costa Times reports on the suit.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
7 comments:
This blog is simply outstanding. Thank you Professor Friedman!
So the city tells the complainants there is nothing the city can be involved with regarding the offensive billboard and directs their complaints to the only party legitimately involved, the owner of the billboard, without directing the owner to remove the sign and that is wrong? Sounds to me like the FFRF are money grubbing whores smelling a deep pocket. Roll the dice; soak the taxpayers; that's the way to win the respect of the citizenry. Unbelievable.
yes, that is wrong, the city should not be passing on complaints as it gives the impression it is endorsing such complaints. It should imply have told the complainants that they had no control over the content and told them to take it up with the owners of the billboards, rather than acting as intermediaries.
I am not sure where the "money grubbing whores" and "soak the taxpayer" comments come from.
The FFRF are not primarily after a lot of money in this one. In their complaint they only ask for "...reasonable costs, disbursements and attorney fees, as allowed by law,..." and "reasonable compensatory and punitive damages..." That rather leaves it up to the court to afix such awards.
The suit primarily seeks enjoining the defendant(s) from further acts endorsing religion or interfering with free speech. And while I might even agree that this one (as far as we understand the particulars of it) is not important enough for the FFRF to pursue this way, to characterize them as "money grubbing whores" is beyond over the top.
Jim51
It seems to be OK for bill boards to carry religious themes. For the City of "Cuckoomunga" to bend to a few complaints about the sign shows they have little regard
for other points of view and that if you don't believe in
an accepted religion you are nobody.
I hope the FFRF gets a huge
settlement from the city because their city managers are simply not up to date with way things really are.
You people crack me up. First of all, Asspentroll, if the FFRF gets a "huge" settlement it is coming from the people, not the city staff. Or maybe you thought each city had a money tree at city hall.
Secondly, I find it incredible that you want to silence the voices of citizens of a community who happen to disagree with you. Very open-minded of you. This city staff was absolutely correct to direct/pass-along or whatever messages complaining or otherwise to the owner/manager of the billboard. Had they done otherwise it would have been the City staff arbitrarily censoring community voices which of course is perfectly acceptable to you intolerant types.
If the city implied to the billboard folks that as a government entity it was preferred that the sign be removed as offensive, that would be an issue but I see nothing indicative of such a postition being taken by the staff.
FFRF is using issues like this one much like the ADA exploitation lawyers who extort small business owners for their own benefit. Whores all.
Anonymous said: This city staff was absolutely correct to direct/pass-along or whatever messages complaining or otherwise to the owner/manager of the billboard.
What a silly idea. Where does it say that a government agency should relay messages from citizens to commercial enterprises. Who knows what distortions might ensue. At most they should, as another poster pointed out, tell a caller to contact the company directly. Anything more is far beyond their purview.
Post a Comment