If a plaintiff is already required to have his name and address on a sex-offendry registry, available to all Hoosiers, including in an online data base, how much more potential harm can for him can there be in not letting him sue the state anonymously?
On Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals will consider whether the Marion County man, convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography, can remain anonymous in pursuing his suit or, as Plainfield maintains, must reveal his identity in making his allegations in court.The plaintiff sued the Hendricks County town over a 2002 ordinance banning people on the registry from public parks and recreational areas. Saying the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution, the offender claims disclosing his name would put him and his young son at risk of harm from vengeful citizens.
He was convicted of child exploitation and possession of child pornography, and we're supposed to sympathize with his contention that the state might put his young son at risk? Neither does Ken Falk, Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, which is representing the plaintiff, who thinks the man's identity is irrelevant. "He could be any one of hundreds of sex offenders who live in or around Plainfield who might want to use the park," Falk said. Presumably Falk was just trying to make a legal point and wasn't trying to reassure Hoosiers when he reminded them of those hundreds of sex offenders who just want to be left alone to prowl the parks anonymously.
