NEWPORT — What started as an Easter display at a Newport church has turned into a federal lawsuit between the church and the city.

        Trinity Baptist Church filed suit Friday in U.S. District Court in Covington, claiming the city of Newport's sign ordinance infringes on its freedom of speech.

        Judge William O. Bertelsman granted the church a temporary restraining order preventing the city from forcing the church to remove three large crosses from its front lawn.

        The 20-foot wooden crosses were placed in front of the church, located at Fifth Street and Park Avenue, in March. In June, city representatives questioned why the crosses were still standing.

        Trinity Youth Minister Robert Strunk said the church planned to take the crosses down, but when city officials questioned them again in July, the church became concerned.

        “Us being a church, the constitutionality of the whole request came into question,” said Mr. Strunk. “When we received that request from the city, we sought out legal counsel. When they looked at it and saw what was going on, they really got excited and jumped in.”

        To gain confirmation that they could erect the crosses, church officials in July requested that the city send a letter formally stating that the crosses could be taken down and put up at any time.

        The city's letter instead said the crosses should be taken down immediately, and would only be permitted under the city's temporary sign permit in the future.

        “We had no intention for them to be permanent,” said Mr. Strunk. “It's not intended to thumb our nose at the city, we want to be good citizens. It just appeared that the Constitution was being stepped on and we wanted to get that out in the open.”

        Newport City Manager Phil Ciafardini said the city has always been lenient about holiday-related displays and doesn't understand the church's actions.

        “We're very perplexed and bewildered about this whole situation,” said Mr. Ciafardini. “We don't know why they've taken this approach.”

        Mr. Ciafardini believes the matter could have been dealt with in a better manner.

        “They clearly jumped the gun and skipped over the lines of communication,” said Mr. Ciafardini. “We're disappointed because we're easy to deal with on these matters.”

        Jeffrey Shafer, a Cincinnati attorney representing Trinity Baptist, said the city's position is an example of a nationwide problem.

        “It takes place all over the country,” said Mr. Shafer. “Zoning commissions do this sort of thing all the time and it's very troubling. This is a textbook violation of First Amendment rights.”

        The lawsuit claims the sign ordinance is unconstitutional because it is not “content neutral.” A section of the ordinance says no sign shall be erected, maintained or continued unless it “is limited in subject matter to the name, design, picture or phone number and address of owner, operator, builder, sales agent, managing agent, lessor, lessee, of the premises or of the activities on the premises in which such sign is located and does not include any general commercial advertising unrelated to or extending in substantial degrees beyond the specifically permitted subject.”

        The temporary sign permit is less defined. It reads that a temporary sign may be displayed “where permitted or required by the zoning administrator.”

        The lawsuit says that because the law spells out permitted sign content in determining whether to issue a permit, the city necessarily must take into consideration the content of the sign. Thus, it “constitutes a prior restraint on the plaintiff's religious speech.”

        The church is challenging the ordinance because the permit process risks their being denied permission to erect the crosses.

        The city wants the display to be considered a temporary sign, which may limit the length of time the crosses can stay.

        Mr. Ciafardini said he thinks there's more to the situation than rights.

        “It seems to me there's some sort of motive here,” he said. “From the church's standpoint, this publicity could do nothing but damage it by putting it in a negative light.”

        Mr. Shafer said the next step will likely be to file a motion for a preliminary injunction next week. He said he would like to get the judge to rule on the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance.

        “We don't know where it's going to go,” said Mr. Strunk. “If it doesn't go to court, that's great. We're prepared to go to court if necessary but we hope it doesn't have to.”

City swelters under heat emergency
Heat wave burns '01 temperatures
Adult movies in hotels targeted
Exception to notification rule
Loveland plans ceremony to remember Sept. 11 victims
Man faces kid porn charges
Marge Schott hospitalized at Jewish
Missing girl photo given golf spectators
Obituary: St. Ursula senior Makena Comisar, 17, 'a blessing'
Ohio State Fair's where city meets the country
Faith Matters
MCNUTT: Neighborhoods
SAMPLES GUTIERREZ: Speak carefully
AARP honors volunteer
Bank robber had long record
Drug dealer seeks years off
New drug unit will cover Warren, Clinton areas
Attorney: Dad given custody before girl's 'kidnapping'
Church challenges ordinance
Gun found in man's carry-on at airport
Parachute flyer probably drowned