ACLU argues in Craig case that airport restroom sex is private

[superconnected]

Source: Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - In an effort to help Idaho Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport. The ACLU on Tuesday filed a brief supporting Craig's side.

The ACLU wrote that a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting the undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.



Read more: http://www.komotv.com/news/local/13821207.html

[Taverner]

1. The irony...the fucking irony...

Sen Craig being helped by the very organization he worked so hard to shut down...

[Kikosexy2]

19. So next I ...

go cruising for sex in a public restroom or at a public park, it is private, right? No arrest can be made? Then, all you hot homos let the party begin...go out there and have public sex..it's private now!...privatized public sex...woo-hoo!

[humbled_opinion]

79. So when Heterosexual's cruise for sex in public places

Thats legal?

hmmmm or oh thats right only Homo's cruise for sex the Hetero's are just in a natural state of communication with each other...

Jeezzzz

[Kikosexy2]

86. Just...

bi-curiosity...

[Hawaii Hiker]

33. Remember, the ACLU also helped that fat drug addict Rush Limbaugh,

God do I hate Rush "oxycotin" Limbaugh..The ACLU was on his side (his fat side) re: the release of his medical records...

[ursi]

35. the airport bathrooms are no more private then my freaking suitcase and pockets are!!!

this is such bullshit!

so if a pedophile molests a kid in the same stall, is that private?

[queerart]

36. This Article Is Speaking Of Consenting Adults.......

.......and the shocker is that not all Queers are Pedophiles......

Just like not all Straights are Pedophiles......

AS NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVEN HINT AT THE IDEA.... that attacking a child in a stall should be private, and or protected......

But it is nice that you brought up the Pedophile slant, and we Thank You For Doing So......

[MADem]

46. No one said anything about the gender of any perv's victim. Stop ASSuming, eh?

Not long ago, a guy raped and murdered a little girl in a casino restroom. The poster's point is valid--that bum shouldn't have had an expectation of privacy in a public facility. If drug deals were going down in those stalls, there'd be no 'expectation of privacy' arguments if the cops wanted to make a bust.

The point is that a PUBLIC restroom isn't suddenly PRIVATE like a hotel room with a snap of the fingers...or the tap of a toe, for that matter.

[queerart]

51. You Know.....

Talking about Privacy in a PUBLIC BATHROOM... has NOTHING to do with Pedophiles.....

But I am glad that you brought up the fact that there ARE STRAIGHT PEDOPHILES....

... and you seasoned it all with a drug sale...... good for you ....

... and I am assuming that you "think" I believe that that a "sex act" is private in a public restroom... I mean, I'm Queer... I must think that, correct?

(your post)The point is that a PUBLIC restroom isn't suddenly PRIVATE like a hotel room with a snap of the fingers...or the tap of a toe, for that matter.

I think you might have spent way too much time telling everyone about your smelly bowel disorder, and much less time reading my posts......

[MADem]

52. You know, you're just OVER-ANXIOUS to TAKE OFFENSE

You're salivating. You couldn't WAIT to leap upon me, and INSIST that I didn't mean what I meant, because it doesn't marry with your 'world view' and your insistence that the poster of the original comment, and by extension myself as well, have an agenda that wishes gay people ill.

Please go back to the ORIGINAL POINT OF DISCUSSION here, and get off your fucking high horse.

The original discussion point WAS EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN RESTROOMS.

I hate to tell you, no matter WHAT your orientation, the fucking world doesn't revolve around you. Sex in restrooms isn't the exclusive province of gay people, either.

The PRIVACY issue, that you carp about (I don't fucking CARE what you happen to "think" there, pal--you aren't winning the logic game so far) was raised by the A-----C-----L----U!!! In their LAWSUIT defending Craig....!!!!

See, THAT's the discussion point--not YOU, or your eagerness to assume that people are somehow "out to get you."

Pack up your faux outrage and move along.

:eyes:

[queerart]

55. So Here's The Rub Pal.....

Sex has no place in the Public Arena.....

I'm guessing that I have not outright articulated that point....

So I am saying again..... Sexual acts of any kind have no place in a Public Arena.....

So where you come up with (The PRIVACY issue, that you carp about (I don't fucking CARE what you happen to "think" there, pal--you aren't winning the logic game so far)

Either one of us is stuck in a bad Fellini movie, or that malodorous bowel disorder is something serious that should be looked into.....

[MADem]

56. Uh, "I" didn't come UP with "the privacy issue." JESUS!!!

THE ACLU CAME UP WITH IT.

It is the CORNERSTONE of the CRAIG DEFENSE they are presenting.

See, THAT's what this THREAD is ABOUT--the Expectation of Privacy in a public facility. Not your hurt feelings, or eagerness to take offense.

The thread discusses an ACLU defense of Larry Craig, using 'expectation of privacy' as the hook upon which they intend to hang their argument to gain him a reversal of the judgment he agreed to; in effect, an aquittal. If you bothered to READ the full thread, you'd SEE that they are doing this because this argument has been used, SUCCESSFULLY, previous to this in a different case, but they're trying to roll back the clock to get the same result for Craig.

Try to follow along, why don't you?

[queerart]

58. You Know......

It appears that you yourself can't follow along with what you yourself are typing.....

So I'll say no more... and then we all can all get back to the topic of this thread ...... the boorish detail of the size, and smell of a Swiss Dump, and Pedophiles......

[MADem]

60. Thread topic: ACLU argues in Craig case that restroom sex is private. NT

[mikelgb]

85. you can't legally molest or deal drugs in a hotel room either

[MADem]

93. But you can have an EXPECTATION of PRIVACY in a hotel room.

Regardless of the legality of the behavior.

And THAT is what the ACLU is trying to argue.

If the cops don't bust in righteously, with a warrant, well, there's no case.

The point isn't the LEGALITY of the behavior, the point is the EXPECTATION of PRIVACY.

I don't think the ACLU will prevail, but they are going to try, based on an old case. I don't know the specifics of that case, either--if it was a pay toilet in that old case, well, that's a horse of a different color...

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. Too many cracks in the ACLU argument. Pun intended, of course.

Metal stalls have open seams, and there's always the possibility of someone peeping under the stall to look to see if the stall is ocupado. All valid ways to look into the stall, and none of it is private.

[MADem]

47. I took one hellluva crap in a fancy bathroom in Switzerland awhile back.

I can't remember how much it cost to park your ass, but it wasn't cheap. It had floor to ceiling doors that actually CLOSED. A very high end joint, sort of sealed, so one's rooting and tooting weren't broadcast far and wide. It had an attendant, too!

The toilet paper got a C-, though; it was that typical crap from that side of the pond--a few steps up from tracing paper, a few steps down from cheap paper towels!

I got my money's worth, though...peee-yew!!!!!!!!!

[Ken Burch]

48. er...thank you for sharing.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[MADem]

53. Heh, heh...sorry!

The point about that restroom is that there MAY have been an expectation of privacy in that case...!

The room was completely sealed, top to bottom, with no way of viewing into it, AND the individual taking a crap had to PAY to use the room as well.

Of course, the facility wasn't in the US--I've never seen ones constructed quite like that on this side of the pond....

[raebrek]

89. The restrooms were the same way in Japan n/t

[MADem]

92. I remember an awful lot of UNISEX in Japan as well! nt

[humbled_opinion]

59. Compare Apples to Apples Please..

Molestation is the crime... not the place you do it... Jeez.. I am losing faith in this board.. .The intelligence level is waning.

[MADem]

64. Pull the thread, though.

In most if not all municipalities, public sex is a crime, just as molestation is--the former is less serious than the latter, but they're both crimes.

The point that the poster was making is that if the same conduct--no matter what it is--happened in a hotel room, there WOULD be an expectation of privacy, even if a criminal act was taking place.

I wouldn't "lose faith in this board" simply because people are having a discussion about the details of the law. There's no assumption that the act of molestation should be "protected"--it's just a way of illustrating the old "goose/gander" aspects of the law.

You can't say that a place is private if you are doing X, but it's suddenly public if you're doing Y.

THAT's the point, see?

And it is "intelligent" to understand that you cannot make that distinction and prevail in a court of law.

[humbled_opinion]

66. To follow you argument to completion

is the act of relieving onself a Public or Private act? In some cultures the act is conducted in very Public ways and their should be no expectation of privacy... however in other cultures like ours we put up doors and walls and locks etc so we are asking to conduct private business in a Public venue...

In other words if i look over at the urinal while your taking a piss and see your penis did I invade your privacy? Probably not

But if you went into a locked stall and I stood on the toilet of the next stall and stared down at you while you were taking a crap would I be invading your privacy.... I think so....

Its pretty simple here and the ACLU is right on this one and Larry craig deserves support regardless of what politics he follows.

[MADem]

69. Now, see, THERE's a "situational" issue!

I can't speak to the ACLU's case, as I don't know how they're going to argue it, but Larry Craig was the guy who was staring through the crack in the restroom stall walls at the undercover cop...so, in essence, he's the guy standing on the toilet staring down--only not quite so obviously....

One could aver that the cop had the expectation of privacy, but he was there as bait to flush out (forgive the expression) that sort of behavior...and then you get into all that 'signalling' that went on, and that muddies the waters. We then move into a 'solicitation' charge, or some sort of 'morals' argument.

It will be an interesting case to follow, at any rate.

[Taverner]

68. And they were right

Makes me proud that I'm a card carrying member

[Turbineguy]

2. Well, I agree.

All of you republicans who have sex in airport restrooms, just leave me out. I don't even want to know about it.

[SacredCow]

3. The ACLU coming to the aid of Craig....

I'm guessing that this is to eventually be used to help the cases of victims of police entrapment....

[atreides1]

4. This will be good for Tourism

"Come to Minnesota,Where Sex in Public Bathrooms is Legal".;)

[JuniperLea]

5. People who use public restrooms for the purpose they were originally intended...

Have no rights I guess. They just have to listen while they're pissin'!

[rocktivity]

11. DING DING DING! Juniperx, you're our grand prize winner!

People who use public restrooms for the purpose they were originally intended (h)ave no rights, I guess.

Besides, Craig isn't guilty of actually having sex in a public bathroom but of soliciting it. And Craig committed that crime by violating the privacy of the undercover policeman that he stared at through the stall door as well as initiating footsie with him. The ACLU is comparing apples and oranges.

:headbang:
rocknation

[JuniperLea]

28. Thanks, rocknation!

I'm a public restroom purist, I guess:)

You know, I've been known to hang with a pretty rough crowd. I'm no prude... fuck no.








Maybe it's just me, but I don't find public restrooms romantic, or erotic in any way whatsoever!

[rocktivity]

29. I've had the pleasure of interviewing both those gentlemen!

As a rock journalist!

:headbang:
rocknation

[JuniperLea]

31. Me too!

That's how I got the pics... I had dinner at Ozzy's house in Buckinghamshire, England...



This was a while ago... check out how young Jack is! And Aimee behind him...


And here's my fav pic of Lemmy... I took this shot at a Foundations Forum in the late 90's.

[baldguy]

6. There is no privacy in public spaces.

In a public bathroom, there is a reasonable expectation for privacy for an individual engaged in disposing of their personal human waste & personal hygiene related to that function. Sexual intercourse doesn't fall under that category.

[bigworld]

8. I'm a big supporter of the ACLU

but they're kind of grasping at straws here.

[Ian David]

10. It's a battle they have to fight. If for no other reason, than to make sure...

... that restrictions on such thing are defined as narrowly as possible.

[bigworld]

18. Yes, but I have a reasonable expectation of being able to pee

with out someone banging their boyfriend in the next stall. Or am I being unreasonable here?

[humbled_opinion]

61. How about masterbation?

If I am on the toilet seat in the Restroom of a Public place and feel like wacking off is that illegal? or is it you who violate my privacy by trying to peek in and see what I am doing the one that has violated my privacy? Stalls have doors and locks which supposedly assue some type of privacy...

Now if I stood oustide at the Urinal and stroked my meat then you might be able to bust me for Lewd conduct in Public...


GET IT...

[tularetom]

7. I really don't think he's gonna welcome this line of defense

because it sorta implies that he had or was trying to have sex in an airport restroom, something he's denied all along. Like saying "it's OK if Sen. Craig gave some guy a BJ in a crapper in the airport.'

He can't use this defense without admitting he was soliciting sex, which he has so far adamantly denied.

Maybe he's just SOL.

[skypilot]

82. That's exactly what I was thinking.

This is going to help Craig how exactly? He's just going to have to start denying everything all over again.

[Ian David]

9. I would argue that SOLICITING sex in restrooms should be protected, but not ENGAGING in it.

There is NO WAY you can expect to have sex in a restroom "in private" unless you're a couple of street mimes.

In any case, I understand The ACLU has to defend this case anyway.

[mzmolly]

13. EXACTLY!

He did not invite him to a private hotel room.

[rocktivity]

15. Your right to use a public bathroom for soliciting and having sex ends

where my right to use a public bathroom as--well, a public bathroom begins.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[humbled_opinion]

63. I heard they were putting in Stall walls that

went Floor to ceiling so that Kind of gives total Privacy in a little locked booth if you will. Sounds mean nothing if you hear moaning and groaning it could be something as simple as Constipation are we going to have sound police next?

[mzmolly]

12. If he had invited him to a hotel room, YES.

But a so called 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is an absurd notion in the context of the Minneapolis Airport.

[rodeodance]

14. IT SO ITTITATES ME THAT the likes of Rush L. and now Craig presonnally

benifit from all the hard work this org. does.


damm

[LanternWaste]

17. Col. Ollie North, too

During the Iran-Contra hearings, the ACLU came to North's defense.

But then again, I'm glad the ACLU helps out these guys-- it gives them less and less room to criticize their activities.

[tblue37]

34. Like that would ever stop them. n/t

[LanternWaste]

50. True. However, when co-workers and/or friends

True. However, when co-workers and/or friends of mine begin denigrating the ACLU for whatever reason, it's always a bit of fun to watch them kvetch when presented with these little tidbits...

:)

[Critters2]

83. And Sean Hannity.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/in_1989_the_ACLU_defended_Sean_Hannity_yet_he_sti

What a bunch of ingrates.

[soupkitchen]

16. Forever More: The ACL LOO

[DemBones DemBones]

38. . . .

:rofl:

ACL LOO

[rayofreason]

20. Get a room...

...or it's public.

[humbled_opinion]

70. You obviously forgot the sixties...

Anyway you sound like the evangelicals... next your will tell me to get a room if I display affection in public too right?

[rayofreason]

87. Depends on the level of affection displayed.

If two people want to hold hands, or kiss, I've got no problem. Somebody wants to give a public blow job, I say get a room or the police will get one for you.

Humans evolved private sex for good reasons or it would not have evolved. Certainly young children exposed to explicit sexual events, either as witnesses or participants, develop behavior problems, and so we have laws against child pornography, sexual abuse, etc. So I think that jailing people for public sexual acts is legitimate.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

21. of all the shit going on in America... the ACLU is taking on THIS?

nevermind torture, domestic espionage, rampant police brutality or any other outrage of the moment, the ACLU is sticking up for this freak of nature?

[Hugabear]

22. That's the beauty of the ACLU

They stick up for everybody when they feel their civil rights are being violated. This is what the rethugs can't comprehend.

[Mithreal]

24. Absolutely agree

[annabanana]

41. And that is why I will continue to be a "card carrying member"!

I got over my wtf moment when I understood why they backed the KKK's right to march in Skokie back in the 60's. . .

[MADem]

54. That IS the beauty of the ACLU. They defend the indefensible, or at least try.

They're the bunch that will defend that bum that no one else wants to touch....and hell, one never knows how scared the population will get, and if they'll see 'terra' and 'terrists' around every corner! The ACLU don't shy away from those "unpatriotic" cases any more than they'll shy away from the Rush/Craig sorts of defenses.

[Mithreal]

23. Leave ACLU alone, it's about law, privacy and don't forget the bonus

Republican Hypocrisy

[Jimbo S]

25. Sen. Craig is getting help from that, that Un-American commie ACLU?

:sarcasm:

[queerart]

26. Sex Is Private In A Public Bathroom You Say?

This is just the type of thing that Haters will pounce on to show that all the Queers in society want to make "Orgy Bathrooms" out of Public Restrooms.

Not to mention that they will start making up weird hybrid stories that we are after some unwary manly men, who eat nails for breakfast, and whom are totally Hetero that just happened to wander into our Den Of Sodomy and got attacked.... and whom was barely able to escape to make it back to safety where his pregnant wife of 20 years was waiting with their 16 kids..... so they could go Easter services on Christmas Day.... and if they can figure out how to insert another religious observance in all that mess.... trust me, they will!

Christ All Mighty.... the ACLU is important to the "downtrodden"... But them helping someone (anyone) say that sex (of any kind) is "private" in a "public restroom" is just one mile past perverted, and two steps short of bizarre!

No own needs to wonder what "distorted stories" the repugnant fund raising letters will be screaming about for the next year......

Queers Want Public Orgy Bathrooms.... and if that headline on it's own doesn't raise enough money.... they will add in that "Hamsters" were involved!

This is sad, sad, sad.......

[rocktivity]

27. Ah, but remember that this case IDENTIFIES Craig as "one of those queers..."

who the Republican party has tolerated!

:headbang:
rocknation

[queerart]

32. With All Due Respect To You......

... and I am not sparring for a fight.......

You make a valid point, without a doubt.....

But I would add........

It's no wonder why society has a problem with Queers.....

When we (not including you, just saying we as all inclusive for GLBT) When we as a community allow a self loathing closeted Tee Room Queen to become our "default Ambassador"...... it's no wonder we (as a group) are often misunderstood.......

[meow2u3]

30. The ACLU is dead wrong on this one

Public restrooms are public places, and behavior that belongs in the privacy of one's own bedroom has no place is public lavatories.

[Robb]

37. One could then argue

...behavior that belongs in the privacy of one's own bathroom has no place, either.

1. I don't want people peeing in front of my kid in a public place
2. Public restrooms are public places
3. No peeing in public restrooms.

[fascisthunter]

39. I Have to Agree with You On This

ACLU is jumping the Shark on this one.

[annabanana]

42. not if the door is closed. . . . n/t

[humbled_opinion]

65. Sure time to shut down all the Adult shops...

Somehow the People here are starting to be come judgemental like a Bunch of evangelical Christians... Did God tell you that sex in the public restroom is wrong and that you should judge all them queers and faggots that conduct themselves in such a way? Maybe we should start lynching a couple queers with signs saying caught in the restroom that ought to put a stop to it huh??

[Deny and Shred]

40. ACLU has messiah complex

ACLU tends to pick strange lines in the sand. I know they are all about protecting rights, no matter whose, but it seems the more bizarre the circumstance, the more they want in.

They are constantly making strange bedfellows because their one tenet is rights. Yes, I find it principled and admirable, no small feat in this day, age and climate, but they will sprint to the other side of the aisle to protect the likes of Sen. Craig or Captain Rush Rush.

The disciples were befuddled by many acts of Christ, kind of a 'just when I thought I had you pegged, you throw us all for a loop.' The ACLU is willing to be nailed to the cross by the right AND left on a continual basis. In this instance, the underlying basis is weaker than usual for them, and they will take some heat from loyal Dems for it (if this board is any indication.)

[truthisfreedom]

43. I LOVE IT. I WANT him to win. I WANT him to be the 'thug that got his guilty plea reversed and won

his case because having sex with a man in a bathroom stall is protected by privacy laws. I LOVE IT!

It's PERFECT!

on edit: This is the gift that keeps giving until it hurts!

[humbled_opinion]

77. Right...

The levels that this gets taken too are insane...

[struggle4progress]

44. I always think it's good news when Larry Craig's sexual solicitation is in the news

[L. Coyote]

49. They will lose because there are no beds in the stalls! Besides, if you

stick you hand in the next stall, your expectation of privacy is all over!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

57. ACLU doesn't have a leg on this argument and here is why.....

if i go seeking a prostitute to have sex with in the privacy of my own automobile ....that is against the law, right? so seeking to have sex in a public bathroom most certainly has to be against this same law, no?

[yellowcanine]

67. I think you have it pretty much correct. Expectation of privacy is not absolute.

Even in your car, if an officer can see from outside that you are not wearing a seatbelt and your state has a seatbelt law he can arrest you for not wearing the seatbelt. And if you are driving without any clothes on he can arrest you for indecent exposure.

A bathroom stall which is only partially enclosed is in the same category. If someone can see under the stall and see and hear that two people are engaging in sex they definately have no reasonable expectation of privacy. And if someone is practicing their "wide stance" and waving their hand underneath the partition and otherwise trying to signal someone in an adjacent stall they have given up any expectation of privacy they may have had as well.

If Craig or anyone else wants to spank the monkey in there they probably have a reasonable expection of privacy so long as they do it alone and don't get too noisy about it.

[humbled_opinion]

71. Further..

What if Craig had just simply said.. "Hey neigbor in the stall next to mine, I like those shoes your wearing, how about we hook up for a smoke and a pancake"? Is that solcitation? There is a slippery slope when dealing with same sex issues, If I see a female that I think is hot and ask here out for coffee, did I invade her privacy? If I make hand gestures towards a female who I think is sexy in an attempt to solicit her attention is that lewd? I think my point is that there is a huge difference between swinging your hand or tapping your feet and well say dropping your drawers and presenting under the stall. Or reaching out and touching without permission. I also think there is a resonable expectation to privacy while we do our business in public restrooms....

[yellowcanine]

73. I could be wrong but I think the testimony was he actually did "touch" the officer.

Bumping shoes or whatever. That PLUS the signals made it clear the "touch" was not accidental.
And I suspect an man "touching" a woman with his shoe in a public place such as a library combined with a raised eyebrow, wink, or some other signal, could be in some trouble if that woman were an undercover officer. I don't see this as significantly different from what happened to Craig.

[humbled_opinion]

74. I never said it was accidental..

You are way overstating this. You took an innocent encounter in a library and turned it into soliciting prostitution. Look if I see a women that I have interest in and I approach her and tap her shoulder or non-chalantly touch her shoe with my shoe and ask her out for coffee or lunch, she has a choice, she can engage me or she can simply state she is not interested but arrest me? What planet do you live on?

[yellowcanine]

78. Same planet and I would not try it if I were you. And a "tap on the shoulder" should not

be equated with attempted footsie. One can be passed off as trying to get someone's attention - the other - not so much.

[humbled_opinion]

81. You are way oversensatized...

I have in fact tapped the foot of a female on the bar stool next to mine on more then one occaision sometimes inadvertent, I unconsciously swing my feet when they are off the ground or sometimes on purpose ... So it goes like this ... swinging my foot i tapped hers which got her attention, depending upon her look i.e., does she smile approvingly at me or do I kind of get a rude look I follow up with the, Excuse me sorry i tapped your foot, pause my name is, What's yours?

Now would you like to join me for a smoke and a pancake?

Never been arrested yet and when that becomes against the law I think I'll move to another country...

[yellowcanine]

90. Rules are different for bars and libraries,

A woman can reasonably expect not to be hit on in a library - not so much in a bar. But even in a bar, if you so much as hint at "compensation for services rendered" and you better have a good lawyer if the lady is an undercover cop.

[humbled_opinion]

96. LOL you sound like you are mad

From a personal experience about "Compensation for Services rendered" In any event Larry Craig did not solicit sex for money at least as far as the cops testimony is concerned.

A women in a library and a grocery store is fair game as well as a Bar..... There is no difference... Larry Craig defense is that he accidentally bumbed the officers shoe with his foot is that Unreasonable? have you never accidentally bumped a shopping cart or brushed past someone and then sparked conversation... come now how long have you been out of the Game? Heterosexual solicitation being a Player is held in high regard by most single men....

I have never heard of a person being locked up for being a player ... Yet...

[humbled_opinion]

76. Again you are overstating the equation.

Where did the solicitation of sex come from? Did larry Craig say to the UC hey buddy blow me for 20 bucks? Did he inappropriately touch him in a sexual manner? not bumping shoes... none of the above...

Don't we all have a reasonable assurance of innocence? Take the sex out of the equation better yet take the Homophobia out of the equation and what are you left with?

[boricua79]

80. no.

Prostitution, whatever its merits, is illegal. It's the act of paying for sex that society has deemed illegal. In fact, you can be cited for indecent exposure and decency laws if caught having sex in a car. The idea is that you can be visible while engaging in sex in a car, and society, for good or for wrong, has decided they'd like to restrict sexual behavior to very private settings.

Having consensual sex is not the violation, and I'm sure that Mr. Craig was used to consensual sex with other gay men in public bathrooms. The issue is having consensual sex in PUBLIC places...in places where there is a reasonable chance of non-participants bumping into two people having sex.

I for one, think that sex should be banned in bathrooms. For the same reason I think children shouldn't be allowed in R-rated movies. Adults enter bathrooms with an expectation and privacy and some level of comfort while performing needed bodily functions. Nobody wants to be in a bathroom and feel uncomfortable because someone in the next stall is performing fellatio or something else on another man. I don't have to be homophobic to not want to have two gay men blowing each other next to me. that's called having respect for others. Go in the bathroom...do your business, wash your hands, and leave.

The ACLU would be hard pressed to argue that, despite expectations of privacy, one can engage in consensual public sex in a manner that prevents reasonable people from finding out that the sex is happening.

hell...I feel uncomfortable just making bodily noises in the bathroom when others are present. What kind of privacy is that?

[humbled_opinion]

Well there you go...

But Larry Craig did none of those things and it was not apparent from anything I read that he was engaged in Sexual activity... or solicited sex... so the issue is to privacy.. Yes you expect privacy in a bathroom stall as you have elaborated on... and you dont expect to enter a public venue and have to witness sexual behavior whether homo or hetero... I get that point too and fully agree and thankfully have never witnessed it. But I also am not in the habit of passing judgement on someone when the facts are simply being overstated and amplified because of their Political or sexual Persuation.

Now sticking to the facts did Larry Craig have every right to assume that his actions within his stall were private... the answer is yes so tapping feet or waving hands or whatever less engaging in sex have a right to Privacy and that is what I think the ACLU is going to argue... Of course there is no basis to argue that a Bathroom stall in the Airport has the same privacy protection as your own bedroom...

Further as I stated in a previous post... Heterosexuals too often find Homosexual behavior abhorent and pass judgement on it but do not rationalize it with their own behavior. i.e., I was in a bar not to long ago and when I sit on the barstool I unconsciously swing my feet.. there was a good looking female seated next to me and I inadvertently bumbed her shoe, which caught her attention and she looked at me to which I made some hand gestures and then sparked up conversation, which later in the privacy of my own home led to a sexual encounter...

If she was a cop, you think I'd have been arrested to solicitation?

[boricua79]

88. a judge, however

may look at the tapping of feet as a suspicious behavior, particularly because it's been associated with previous cases. Everything within reason and common sense. If the call sign is tapping the foot, a judge can take previous case history into account. That bathroom already had a flaming reputation as being a gay sex solicitation place. It was even listed on gay sex websites. Either Larry Craig is incredibly unlucky to have made the mistake of tapping a police officer's foot in a bathroom where the exact behavior denotes solicitation for sex, or he was doing exactly what he needed to do to attract the attention of a potential partner. I'm not going to give Larry that much benefit of the doubt on that.

As for your story, you were able to get that girl with your conversation, not the tapping of her feet. That was just the spark. and you took your sexual encounter home. No cop could charge you with wrongdoing.

If you had sex with her in the bar's bathroom and got caught, that would be a different story.

[humbled_opinion]

95. OK

1. A judge cannot convict someone for a perfectly legal act (Foot Tapping) even if the behavior is noted as a sign to solicit sex no more could the police arrest a blood or crpt for making a hand sign or gang sign even though that sign may mean to break the law.

2. Larry Craig is gay I have no doubt but he is a self depracating gay man and he cannot come to grips with his sexuality and his politics... that also is not a crime. Of course he was soliciting sex but he was not engaing in it that is where I relate it to a Heterosexual attempting to solicit a women for sex but not pay for it.

3. No in fact we took it to my car drove to a park near the beach and never quite made it home... lol.. but yes I was not arrested because I took precautions to ensure some discretion.

4. Maybe but lets look even closer at the issue of two people sharing a (toilet)... Many Hetero sexual women share bathroom stalls and chat with each other while they are relieving themselves... Some in fact go into the stall with each other.. Sisters, close friends this is not uncommon... However if two men were to do it it an immediate sexual conclusion is drawn....

Why?

[yellowcanine]

91. If she were a cop and you had discussed a price, yes.

[humbled_opinion]

94. Hmm

In all the coverage of the Larry Craig story I don't seem to remember the issue of discussing price coming up before?

[humbled_opinion]

84. Well there you go...

But Larry Craig did none of those things and it was not apparent from anything I read that he was engaged in Sexual activity... or solicited sex... so the issue is to privacy.. Yes you expect privacy in a bathroom stall as you have elaborated on... and you dont expect to enter a public venue and have to witness sexual behavior whether homo or hetero... I get that point too and fully agree and thankfully have never witnessed it. But I also am not in the habit of passing judgement on someone when the facts are simply being overstated and amplified because of their Political or sexual Persuation.

Now sticking to the facts did Larry Craig have every right to assume that his actions within his stall were private... the answer is yes so tapping feet or waving hands or whatever less engaging in sex have a right to Privacy and that is what I think the ACLU is going to argue... Of course there is no basis to argue that a Bathroom stall in the Airport has the same privacy protection as your own bedroom...

Further as I stated in a previous post... Heterosexuals too often find Homosexual behavior abhorent and pass judgement on it but do not rationalize it with their own behavior. i.e., I was in a bar not to long ago and when I sit on the barstool I unconsciously swing my feet.. there was a good looking female seated next to me and I inadvertently bumbed her shoe, which caught her attention and she looked at me to which I made some hand gestures and then sparked up conversation, which later in the privacy of my own home led to a sexual encounter...

If she was a cop, you think I'd have been arrested to solicitation?

[yellowcanine]

62. I usually agree with the ACLU but on this one I don't. Yes, there is an expectation of privacy in a

bathroom stall if you are using the stall for what it was designed for - but not if you are using it for sex. If the Minnesota Supreme Court said otherwise they were wrong and I suspect that federal courts would overrule them that if anybody pushed it. And besides, Craig lost his chance to make a case on those grounds when he pled guilty.

[humbled_opinion]

72. Your are way too far ahead...

He may have been soliciting sex but even that is debatable.. but for sure, he was not using the stall for sex. Get the story straight... I hate when people over inflate the subject and add strawmen...

Of course if Larry Craig and another man were engaged in sexual activity in public and were caught by the police it would be lewd and lacivious and against the law.

You can further advance the question of Privacy if you simply take the sex out of the equation. Gestures are not sex... i.e.,

Lets say you and I are each in our own restroom stall and I saw you go in beforehand and thought you were good looking... While I was conducting my business I spark up a conversation with you and ask you out for coffee, can I be arrested for that? On edit if I write you a nice romantic note on the toilet paper and non-chanlantly drop it there for you to read is that also a case for lock up?

Think carefully...

[yellowcanine]

75. Well yes, you can certainly make the case for "entrapment" as opposed to an officer walking in on

a case of "in flagrante delicto." And I think Craig would have had a good chance of beating the rap (more likely it would have been dropped by the DA or thrown out by a judge) IF he had stuck with a "not guilty" plea - certainly if he has any kind of lawyer at all. Problem is that Craig pled guilty so he lost any defense opportunity at all, including entrapment and any expectations of privacy. This is simply not a good case for the ACLU to weigh in on, given that complication.