This Just In...

Kevin:

I was stopped by a fair number of friends and constituents who congratulated us on our big win, but I'm astonished at the total lack of media coverage for a decision that impacts cities, towns and villages all across the state of Wisconsin and the safety of their children.

This ruling (improperly characterized in the J-S headline on Friday), reaffirms a municipalities obligation to adopt laws to protect its' citizens in a manner that it sees fit, within the constitution and state law.

Judge Franke's ruling puts to rest all of the side arguments that we've heard for the last two years that it's unconstitutional, it violates the offenders civil rights and any number of other issues that we studied, debated and read case law about.

His decision reaffirmed our rights to protect our citizens.

Yet without your broadcast, the story would continue to be buried on the second to last page of the metro section.

Even your blog host, the Franklin NOW hasn't touched the story.

It's just a shame.

But in the end, we're still working for the safety of our community.

We have a lot more work to do, but the 4th was so much sweeter of a holiday after the ruling.

Thanks for keeping it out front.

The battle continues.

You’re right about the Journal headline, Steve.

It reads:

“Suit against Franklin sex offender limits dismissed”

The headline doesn’t convey what truly happened. In fact, one could read the headline and actually see and subsequently think, “Franklin sex offender limits dismissed.”

While Steve Hanke did argue that Franklin’s ordinances were unconstitutional and his motion to that end was denied by the judge, a more accurate headline would have been any of the following:

“Franklin’s tough sex offender ordinances upheld”

“Restrictive sex offender measures in Franklin ruled constitutional”

“Franklin wins, sex offender loses in court battle over residency rules”

I do not blame veteran Journal/Sentinel reporter Marie Rohde who wrote the article. The reporter rarely, if ever, writes the accompanying headline.

In this case, the headline writer could have chosen clearer wording.

And yes, a story of this magnitude shouldn't have been buried, but it was by the Journal/Sentinel.

The battle never ends, Steve. I'll be blogging more about this case in the days ahead. Stay tuned.