Sex in restroom stalls is private, ACLU says

[Contrary1]

What say you?

Civil liberties group goes to bat for Sen. Craig

"ST. PAUL, Minnesota - In a legal effort to help a U.S. senator, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Republican Senator Larry Craig is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport last year.

Craig was arrested by an undercover police officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/

[IdesOfOctober]

1. Massachusetts High Court sided with ACLU position several years ago.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=massachusetts+%22supreme+judicial+court%22+sex+in+public+steps+alter+line

[sandnsea]

6. This was a case in the woods

where the couple was "adequately hidden from view". Not remotely the same thing as a public airport bathroom. This isn't going to be upheld in a cazillion years.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. no, I think this is different...

The Massachusetts ruling says "public sexual conduct is not illegal unless there is a "substantial risk" that the conduct will be observed by a casual passerby".


from a similar article

"An area may be open to the public and not be considered a ‘public place"’ if the area is hidden so that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to be seen by passers-by, the guidelines said.

"There are laws against having sex in public places and those laws have been on the books for a number of years and we will enforce those laws," said State Police Capt. Robert Bird.

But he said, "If you’re in a park and you go off the path and into the bushes, then it’s not necessarily a public place, because you have a reasonable expectation you won’t be seen."
http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/massachusetts/manews08.htm

[IdesOfOctober]

14. That was the initial take. In practice, a lot of jurisdictions stopped conducting stings.

You might say the towns in MA have a wide stance on this matter still.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

17. ...

:spray:

[IdesOfOctober]

20. I could say that I thought long and hard about that response, but truthfully, it just came.

[FlyingSquirrel]

26. ......

:spray: :spray: :spray:

[IdesOfOctober]

60. I know, I know. I'm a mess.

[IdesOfOctober]

201. OK, so it backfired.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

55. Yuck! How about being "heard?"

I don't expect to send my son into a men's bathroom and have him hear two guys having sex. Good grief.

And he's just a little too old to come into the ladies' room with me.

[JuniperLea]

81. My thoughts exactly... eom

[avaistheone1]

85. Yup, pretty disgusting.

Yuck.

[Javaman]

164. ...

Dudes, can you keep it down? I'm trying to have a moment here...and read the comics!!! It's the only peace I get all day!!!! Dudes????

:rofl:

[99th_Monkey]

2. So THIS is what ACLU's spending their time with instead of Impeachment? I was wondering. nt

[cynatnite]

5. If you go to their site,you'll see that they are fighting things like torture at gitmo...

:eyes:

Do you know that the ACLU can walk and chew gum at the same time?

[99th_Monkey]

9. I don't doubt for a NY heartbeat that ACLU works on very worthy issues...

with the painfully obvious exception of impeaching the criminals running our nation into the ground.

If law really is ACLU's forte, then I'd say they are majorly missing the boat & "out to lunch" to turn a
blind eye to Bush's horrendous crimes against the US people and humanity.

[cynatnite]

13. The goals of the ACLU do not include impeachment...

Here is what the ACLU is about...

Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html

[99th_Monkey]

21. So ACLU insists on re-arranging deck chairs, rather than manning life-boats, on USATitanic?

OK, I think I get it now.

As citizens, we've seen our rights to speech, association, equal protection, due process and privacy ALL shredded by the treasonous criminals
sitting in the WH; but impeaching the President and Vice-president directly and transparently responsible for the shredding are not held
accountable by the only means available under the US Constitution.

OK, I think I get it now.

[cynatnite]

24. Impeachment is up to congress to pursue...

That's who you need to contact on that specific issue.

The ACLU does take on the administration on civil rights and our individual liberties. If you take two seconds to look at their website you'll see what exactly they are doing. It's very detailed.

Just on the home page alone the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of folks who were protesting bush. They had been moved out of bush's line of sight. Nothing happened to the pro-bush supporters.

That's just one example on their home page. That's not to mention torture, FISA, LGBT rights and more.

The ACLU fights the good fight for all of us. They shouldn't be trashed because they're not fighting it the way YOU want.

[99th_Monkey]

28. I think this sentence sez it all

"The ACLU does take on the administration on civil rights and our individual liberties. "

I'll no longer look to ACLU for that kind of help. Thanks for verifying this factoid.

[cynatnite]

29. Did you know in the constitution it says that congress pursues impeachment?

Do you need a link for that?

Oh, BTW, I said more than once that the ACLU does not deal with impeachment. Why did it take you so long to figure it out?

:eyes:

[99th_Monkey]

89. ACLU has influence, no? Nat'l Lawyers Guild charter does not contain the word "impeachment" either

yet it has come out in FAVOR of it to INFLUENCE Congress. what is so difficult for you to understand about that?
http://www.nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry071106-092734

[mondo joe]

96. What makes it so hard for YOU to understand that the Guild's charter is rather broad

and perfectly suited to this, but the ACLU's isn't?

[99th_Monkey]

100. whatever.. we agree to disagree .

it's a judgment call either way.. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over it, and neither should you.

[CTyankee]

153. People have forgotten that the ACLU was the first national organization to come out for Nixon's

impeachment. I know because I worked there at the time, in the NY national office, for the Ex. Dir. Aryeh Neier. The Board of Directors of the ACLU had voted in 1973 to call for impeachment and then at another Board meeting came out with their recommendation for what the standard of guilt would be. I believe it was "clear and convincing." There was consideratble discussion about it. The national ACLU's membership suddenly swelled dramatically after it had taken out a full page ad in the NY Times asking for people to join the organization in support of the impeachment effort. That number was to drop just as dramatically when the organization took the unpopular stand in the Skokie Klan march. It was an interesting time to work there!

[99th_Monkey]

247. Wow. Thanks for bringing some real information to this sub-topic.

I was starting to feel outnumbered by peeps thrashing me for daring to utter the suggestion that ACLU support impeachment ..

what do you make of all these terse snarky claims to effect that impeachment is "not in their charter" ??

seems a really lame response but people were coming unhinged about it. what do you make of this?

ACLU donors who identify with the organization and want to feel good about where their money went ..is my best guess.

[CTyankee]

286. It probably isn't "in their charter". As I recall, there was a list of civil liberties

infringements that was the core of the ACLU's Nixon impeachment effort. I'm sure it can be googled as all of the Board meetings were meticulously recorded in lengthy meeting minutes, with all of the arguments pro and con summarized. The meetings were 2 day affairs and the Board members carefully prepared their "briefs" (most were lawyers or law professors). I learned a lot about Constitutional Law attending those meetings! They were really terrific...

The facts truly support you and do not support the snarks out there. It is all in how the case is made. I do recall members of the House impeachment committee (this was before the Senate one) calling the ACLU national office looking for its determination on the question of the Nixon impeachment.

[LanternWaste]

53. Since only congress can bring impeachment charges

Since only congress can bring impeachment charges, the ACLU has as much chance of doing that as do you.

Which begs the question, why haven't YOU brought the President up on charges...?

[99th_Monkey]

90. I'm not a NATIONAL & influential organization.. big diff. Nat'l Lawyers Guild IS though..

and they have USED their influence to PUSH for impeachment, like the ACLU would too, if they had an ounce of backbone
around this issue...
http://www.nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry071106-092734

[uppityperson]

74. You won't look to ACLU for help on what they do?

:crazy: They work on civil rights and individual liberties so you won't look to ACLU for that kind of help?

[99th_Monkey]

92. My civil rights & liberties have been pretty much shredded by the criminals in the WH

already .. yet not a peep from ACLU to help put impeachment back ON the table.. all this crap about it
"not being in their charter" is total BS.. it's not in the Nat'l Lawyers Guild charter either but they
have the courage and wisdom to come out publicly to push for impeachment. I see no good reason the ACLU
should not do the same.

http://www.nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry071106-092734

[mondo joe]

94. The ACLU doesn't have the power to impeach or to make it happen. You might as well blame the Humane

Society or FoodLifeline or the National Coalition to End Homelessness or the RedCross.

You don't know what the ACLU does - though you do benefit from it.

[99th_Monkey]

130. No one entity has the power to impeach per se, except Congress, correct. which doest NOT mean

everyone should just "go about their business" and ignore the fact that Bushco has piled more impeachable crimes one upon another add nauseum, that any other President in the nation's history. no story here.. la de da.

No damn it.. NO! In such cases silence is complicity on anyone's part, especially a nationally recognized organization who's charter claims it "protects our rights and liberties".

having said that, my sense is we've taken this exchange beyond the point of diminishing returns in terms of actually achieving any more clarity.
I say we agree to disagree and move on.

thanks for the exchange..it is interesting and surprising to me that some progressives (is that a fair description of you?) honestly feel it is none of ACLU's business to be endorse impeachment... I did not know that, so i guess i learned something.

[mondo joe]

49. ACLU insists on fulfilling ITS mission. Impeachment isn't included in that. NT

[99th_Monkey]

93. Nor is impeachment explicitly in the "mission" of the Nat'l Lawyers Guild, yet they HAVE endorsed it

http://www.nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry071106-092734

the ACLU's conspicuous silence on impeachment is shameful and unfortunate.

[mondo joe]

95. Natl Lawyers Guild is a membership, and has a very broad charter. That's not the case for

the ACLU. You're having an uninformed WANT based on the fact that ACLU has anything to with law, ignoring what is actually in its mission to do.

[99th_Monkey]

101. I think ANY organiz. worth it's salt should be screaming from the rooftops 4 impeachment

provided it doesn't endanger it's IRS status doing so, but maybe even if it does..

freedom isn't always free ..

I'm at the point with you of wanting to simply agree to disagree. thanks for the exchange.

[mondo joe]

241. I'd think any organization worth is salt would tend to its mission, as it commits

to its donors and members to do.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. The ACLU takes cases like this, that no private lawyer will touch. nt

[Political Heretic]

31. That's like condemning Greenpeace for not being focused on Impeachment

Or the National Association for Victims of Domestic Violence.... how DARE the focus on campaigns against domestic abuse rather than focusing on Impeachment!!?! Outrageous!! :eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

42. Greenpeace defends our constitution?

Wow I had no idea.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

50. ACLU's job is to protect civil liberties, notably the first amendment, equal protection,

equal protection, due process and right to privacy. Pushing for impeachment is not included in their mission.

[LanternWaste]

52. I'm sure that whether you aware of it or not

I'm sure that whether you aware of it or not, the ACLU can work on a rather large number of cases at any given time. Hence, working on one case does not preclude the ACLU from working on another case.

[99th_Monkey]

135. Oh, that's right I got them confused with Pelosi's office

who sez it has "more important business" than upholding the constitution by prosecuting crimes in high places.

my bad.

thing is tho, Congress obviously needs more than a little encouragement and even pressure apparently to get their
priorities straight, and national organizations (esp. ones who claim to be in the business of protecting our liberties)
in my view have a responsibility to go on record on this ... but then that's only going to make sense to you if you
actually support impeachment in the first place .. which you do of course, right?

[LanternWaste]

168. Seems to me that in the context of the broader discussion

"if you actually support impeachment in the first place .. which you do of course, right?"

Seems to me that in the context of the broader discussion, your question would be more relevant if asked to the Speaker's office, your local representative, the ACLU and all the other organizations that you're criticizing.

As to whether I support impeachment or not is hardly relevant. For the record, I do-- but I rarely spend my time complaining about the inaction of others, and use that time to concentrate on the actions I myself take... but that's just me.

[99th_Monkey]

203. For the record, I've done ALL the things you say I "should be doing" .. and then some.

and am disappointed in ACLU for their silence on impeachment, but I applaud all the very worthwhile thing they do..

however, protecting the "privacy" of bathroom sex by Rethug Congressmen is not among those worthwhile things in my view.

I make no apology for expressing my disappointment on an internet political discussion board.

[H2O Man]

54. Silly.

Those are two distinct issues. In the case of the privacy issue, one can agree or disagree with the ACLU position, but recognize it fits the area of law the ACLU deals with.

Impeachment is not, in any sense, part of the ACLU's focus. It never has been, and never will be.

More, if anyone wants to express an "opinion" on this, they should have enough information to make a reasoned case. The ACLU does not do impeachment, but the closely associated Center for Constitutional Rights does.

When people express "opinions" that fly in the face of facts, it really isn't an "opinion" at all. It is a bias, and of very little if any value.

[99th_Monkey]

136. So does the Center for Constitutional Rights support Impeachment? just curious.

I'm not claiming to know every jot and tittle about ACLU, except that they're a nationally recognized organization that does lots of good work
protecting civil rights and liberties, and feel as such, they could help make impeachment happen by saying they support it.

I frankly don't give a fuck if it sez explicitly in their charter that they "support Impeaching Bush & Cheney" .. it's not in Nat'l Lawyers Guild's
charter either, but they made a public statement supporting impeachment, and I don't see why ACLU should get a pass and be excused from having
any opinion on it.

If they don't support it, they should at least say that, and give their reasons... but to just "decline to comment - it's not in our charter" seems like a cop out.

If they have a close sister organization that IS pushing for impeachment (Center for Constitutional Rights maybe?) then that's another story, and I'd
be glad to know for sure that such is the case. Do you know?

[H2O Man]

139. Yes.

You should go to their web site.

[99th_Monkey]

210. I went to CCR's website

and it was informative. I see they supported Impeach07 movement. that's great.

The site does not mention any affiliation with ACLU however, I checked the "Mission and Hisory" page for
that, but to no avail.

Do you know the nature of their affiliation with ACLU? I couldn't see any from the website.

[H2O Man]

236. Yes, I do.

[99th_Monkey]

243. That's nice to know.

for you at least. I guess I was hoping for something a bit more substantive and compelling than just posting three words.. you could have
maybe gotten it down to two words if you'd tried harder .. like "trust me".

my question was sincere, not snarky. I'm genuinely curious and open minded about our little sub-topic .. do you have anything to add to
"yes, i do" or not? If so i'd really like to see it.

[ProudDad]

111. It's your fucking, spineless Democrats

who are "blocking" the impeachment process.

The ACLU has NO freakin' way of legislating impeachment.

The Impeachment process MUST originate in the House of Representatives.

Read your pocket constitution! You do have a pocket constitution, don't you?

http://www.usalone.com/kucinich_tv.php

[99th_Monkey]

137. Your inane post is an insult to Wexler's 200,000 petition signers for impeachment

none of which have the power to "legislate impeachment" .. but they have opinions which in a democracy should count for something.

ACLU's opinion would carry weight, would get attention .. it could make a real difference .. perhaps even more than all 200,000
concerned citizens who signed the petition .. but .. ACLU gets a pass because it's not spelled out in their charter in bold print
"support impeachments efforts against the Bush Crime Family" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

This is not to take away from all their other good work, it's just something I feel strongly and I doubt there's much you could
say to change that feeling.

one other poster above suggested that the Center for Constitution Rights is somehow affiliated with ACLU .. and it was implied that
they have supported impeachment, that that was not stated very clearly to be the case.. if that were true tho, I would feel better
about the whole thing.

[mcscajun]

263. It's not their place to work on Impeachment. The ACLU's sole charge

is Defending the Bill of Rights, not the entire Constitution. Period. End of mission statement.

And actually, ACLU actions, and casework, both take place at the local chapter level; many local chapters have called for impeachment (that's not working on it, simply making a statement).

I don't know that the Minnesota Chapter has done so.

Why not join us in the ACLU and make your voice heard on the matter?

www.aclu.org/join

[readmoreoften]

3. More than three shakes is playing with it, as they say. You don't want cameras in there, do ya?

People need to lighten up.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Are we being serious?

If so, then I'm on Craig's side. And if it takes this slimy hypocrite to end public sexual entrapment, then maybe God has willed it. After all, He (God, not Craig) works in mysterious ways.

That said, I think we should let the world know that if Larry Craig wants to cruise men's rooms for promiscuous gay sex, that should be between him, his gay lovers, his wife, and his God.

It's the Christian thing to do.

--p!

[cynatnite]

10. n/t

[pnwmom]

12. I think his right to cruise ended when his foot and hand intruded

into his neighbor's stall. As his ACLU lawyer argues, there is a right to privacy involved.

Surely there must be another way to make a connection that doesn't involve intruding into the personal space of men and boys who are only there to use the toilet.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. The bathroom sex lovers meet at a park near my house

and the restroom is right next to a playground.

When the police arrest them, is THAT public sexual entrapment?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

56. That's disgusting.

Sex is not generally a quiet activity, and if those "lovers" are stupid enough to have sex in a bathroom stall next to a kids' playground, I would imagine that they don't care if the kids hear them.

What a bunch of jerks.

[pnwmom]

8. If bathroom stalls are private, then it should be an invasion of privacy

if you poke your hands and feet into someone else's stall.

(Unless that person gives you permission, of course.)

So it seems that if the ACLU is correct on the privacy issue, which it may well be, then they are indirectly condemning him for invading the privacy of the police officer. Fortunately for Craig, he wasn't charged with that higher-level offense.

[petronius]

15. That was my thought as well - if you can expect privacy in a stall for

sex, then it's reasonable that you can expect privacy to do whatever else you might do in there, without being solicited for sex...

[Fleshdancer]

19. good point, the solicitation would have to occur outside of the stall.

wild.

[mondo joe]

63. And I think the standard ought to be what can reasonably expected for the setting.

Bathroom stalls afford enough privacy to use for the intended purpose - but that is very limited. The doors nd alls don't extend to the floor, and there's no acoustic privacy to speak of.

While it might be private enough for some things, it's not private enough to do ANYTHING unobserved.

[pnwmom]

68. It's funny that Minnesota came up with that court case way back in 1938.

Quite a liberal state, that Minnesota!

And I agree. I don't think bathroom stalls are equivalent to little "cottages," even if some people do.

Children, especially, who use public bathrooms shouldn't have to be inches away from adults having sex. It would be considered abuse if we allowed this to happen in our own homes. Why should it be any different in a public toilet?

[0007]

283. Perhaps planparenthood should take up their practice in private stalls

at airports?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

80. i agree. i assume that the person in the next stall doesnt want me to bust in on them

whether they are peeing or fucking.

and i dont expect them to bust in on me either

[tuvor]

16. Huh? Private sex in a public washroom?

:shrug:

[Fleshdancer]

18. Now this is an interesting debate

We expect a reasonable expectation of privacy when defecating, urinating, and changing out feminine products in public restrooms so where does that expectation of privacy end?

I find it interesting that the MN Supreme Court has already ruled on sex in closed stalls in restrooms 38 years ago.

[Radical Activist]

22. Personally, when having sex in a barroom bathroom with a woman I barely know

I've had an expectation of privacy too. This makes sense.

:silly:

[Contrary1]

23. My question is this:

When does a couple expecting privacy while having sex in the next stall intrude on my privacy...or that of my child?

I use this as a hypothetical, since my kids are adult. But, at what age would it be acceptable to have a young person hear grunting, deep breathing, and "Oh my God!" while they were using a public restroom?

[Fleshdancer]

25. I think the point is....

While you are in a stall (or when your child is in a stall) there is high expectation of privacy. We assume the time spent in the stall is for defecation, urination, or the use of feminine products, but because the time spent in a stall private, there's no way to monitor what actions can or can not be allowed.

[Djinn]

112. they might hear grunting

deep breathing and "oh my god" from a stall where NO sex is taking place - perhaps the occupant needs more roughage?

Completely silent sex is easy - especially for anyone who has spent time in shared houses or were sexually active whilst still living with their parents.

[TrogL]

27. So taht means the local gay bar can't kick us out?

I'm still banned from the last ten times.

[xchrom]

32. ...

:spray:

i keep a list of the ones i'm banned from and the ones i'm not in my wallet.

it keeps me from being embarrassed in front of my friends.

[Political Heretic]

30. That's a terrible article title, but the ACLU is once again correct

...and standing up for the rights of citizens, even the likes of Craig.

The more important issue which the ACLU also discusses, is the entrapment issue. Remember that he was charged with disorderly conduct after responding to an undercover officer's pretend invitations - I have a pretty big problem wiht that.

I'd encourage you to read the brief. The ACLU's case is pretty compelling.

[pnwmom]

36. But if they are correct, then their same argument can be used against Craig.

After all, he invaded the privacy of the police officer by sticking his foot and his hand into the adjoining stall.

Ironically, he was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, when by the ACLU's own argument he WAS guilty of invading the policy officer's privacy.

[Political Heretic]

109. You can't invade the privacy of someone who initiates contact.

That's the thing in this case.

[pnwmom]

121. The policeman didn't initiate contact.

You should be able to move your foot in your own bathroom stall without being accosted by people sticking hands and feet into your space.

The police officer moved his own foot in his own stall. He didn't intrude into Craig's space.

[Political Heretic]

123. You must be joking.

The policeman there wasn't off duty. He wasn't there to take a dump. He was there on duty in a "sting" to trick people into soliciting for sex. He wasn't tapping his foot reading a paper. He was trying to draw the person into the next stall into what the person in the next stall would construe as an invitation. And continued to reciprocate and encourage response.

[pnwmom]

131. I'm serious.

The fact is, all the police officer did was move his own foot up and down in his own space. This could be done by anyone -- lots of people have restless habits and jiggle their arms and legs -- it doesn't mean that they want to be accosted by a stranger while going to the bathroom.

I understand that the officer did it on purpose knowing that someone else might interpret it as some kind of "code." Tough. That doesn't qualify as entrapment. (Entrapment would be if the officer said, "hey, let's have sex in my stall," and then arrested Craig when he got inside.)

People should be able to jiggle their feet or otherwise get comfortable in a bathroom without having to fear that the guy next door is going to stick his hands and feet under the wall. The police decoy was there to discourage this kind of behavior, and I'm sure it worked -- for a time, anyway.

[Political Heretic]

134. You need to read the statement of the police officer himself, because you are seriously wrong.

And besides that, your point is irrelevant. The ACLU's point, regardless of whatever you think about people's "right to jiggle their feet" is that since the state supreme court has ruled that a bathroom is a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy - that's a legal phrase that means something specific, not just dealing with "privacy" in general - the police have no authority to arrest based on spying that goes on there.

The brief, IF YOU WOULD READ IT, goes on to explain their opposition to Craigs arrest is that the statue under which he was charged is unreasonable broad, so as to potentially affect many people outside the scope of its intention. It's a bad law, and its constitutionally unsound.

The officer himself details the very specific actions he took. You seem to have this idea that you could be sitting in a stall just casually reading a paper and moving your foot and suddenly be accosted by some crazed homosexual who misunderstands your intention. That's pretty absurd. This is not just some casual foot tap. It's very specific, and hard to mistake.

I would argue, and so would an attorney, that the officers non-verbal yet very specific actions were the equivalent of "hey lets have sex."

[mondo joe]

154. And if I were on the jury I would laugh at your defense that the officer's foot tap

was necessarily an invitation to have sex. That's really debatable.

But since Craig was actually charged with disorderly conduct for peering into the stall BEFORE any feet were tapping, I don't know that you'd get to your defense of something he wasn't charged with.

[Political Heretic]

126. Please read the breif (provided) before making a judgement call

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.htm...

And press release here:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.htm

This is the important statement:

The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy.

The article puts its own spin on it basically saying, "oh so you're arguing that everyone should just be having sex in bathroom stalls everywhere!" In reality, the ACLU's CORRECT point is that the police have no authority to initiate spying in places that have been determined to be "private" by the State Supreme Court without a warrant. In other words, what is at issue here is the entrapment, not some advocacy for mass sex in bathrooms.

[pnwmom]

132. The logical conclusion is that Craig was wrong to poke his hands and feet

into the next stall, since the other occupant had a right to expect privacy in there.

Too bad Craig intruded into the privacy of a police officer.

[Political Heretic]

138. You keep saying the same thing even though you are shown to be factually wrong.

...then when presented with that information, you just keep saying the same thing. I'm starting to smell the whiff of some homophobia in the air? Like there are these roving gangs of sex-crazed gays that might attack you in your stall or something? :scared:

Once AGAIN, I REPEAT, the SAME facts for you:

You can't invade the privacy of someone who is initiating contact with you. your point is irrelevant. The ACLU's point, regardless of whatever you think about people's "right to jiggle their feet" is that since the state supreme court has ruled that a bathroom is a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy - that's a legal phrase that means something specific, not just dealing with "privacy" in general - the police have no authority to arrest based on spying that goes on there. That's the point.

By the way, even by your very bizzare argument, Craig gets charged with "trespassing" (since you are taking an interpretation of "privacy" that has to do with domain, and not with search and seizure). He does not get charged with a conduct charge. To charge him with that, the police officer had to do more than sit there and mind his own business.

The brief, IF YOU WOULD READ IT, goes on to explain their opposition to Craig's arrest is that the statue under which he was charged is unreasonable broad, so as to potentially affect many people outside the scope of its intention. It's a bad law, and its constitutionally unsound.

The officer himself details the very specific actions he took. You seem to have this idea that you could be sitting in a stall just casually reading a paper and moving your foot and suddenly be accosted by some crazed homosexual who misunderstands your intention. That's pretty absurd. This is not just some casual foot tap. It's very specific, and hard to mistake.

I would argue, and so would an attorney, that the officers non-verbal yet very specific actions were the equivalent of "hey lets have sex."

Also, Craig is not a law enforcement officer. The issue, as I keep pointing out, is the police officer arresting Craig on the basis of information gathered in an area where the supreme court of the state has ruled a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- all that word "privacy" means in this case is free from the spying, search or siezure of law enforcement without due process, i.e. a warrant.

You have no point. Which, I guess, is why you continue to repeat the same thing over and over even when its show to be wholly without merit.

[pnwmom]

140. If I sound like I'm repeating myself, it's because I'm trying to find some way

of getting you to understand what I'm saying.

I've read the brief, and you seem to have missed the fact that the entire brief is based on calling into question the LESSER CHARGE, the disorderly conduct charge, that Craig agreed to plead to -- rather than the more serious "interference with privacy" charge that the state agreed to drop. Craig is lucky that the state didn't insist on keeping the interference with privacy charge and dropping the disorderly conduct charge instead.

The officer didn't arrest Craig based on his spying on Craig. He didn't peek into Craig's stall, Craig peeked into his. The officer didn't spy Craig and another man in the act of anything, nor did he try. The officer arrested Craig based on Craig's intrusion into the officer's stall.

If the officer had peeked into Craig's stall, then I would agree with you and the ACLU that he was violating Craig's right to privacy. If he stuck his own foot or slid his own hand into Craig's space, then I would also agree with you. But he didn't. He was there first, sitting in a stall, and all he did was move his own foot around within his own space. Craig first peeked into the officer's stall, then chose to interpret the officer's movement through his own hopeful intentions and intruded physically into the officer's stall.

You don't like the fact that I disagree with you and so you accuse me of homophobia. Sorry, but the gay community doesn't speak with a uniform voice on this issue, much as you'd like it to.

[Political Heretic]

237. You are leaving out some things from the officer's own account

It does not seem to me that your description of events does not match the officers own account of his own actions -- not because of what your description includes, but in what it does not include. Read it for yourself. But before getting caught up in that, I think there's actually a bigger issue here:

I agree with the ACLU, when they say that, "if law enforcement is genuinely interested in stopping sex in public bathrooms rather than ensnaring people in sting operations, posting a sign prohibiting it and announcing police patrols would be much more effective and would meet constitutional requirements."

By not doing that, in a place where there is already established law stating that people have a right to expect not to be under surveillance by law enforcement while in a public bathroom stall, the police cross the line.

This is not about condoning anything. This is about the proper limits of law enforcement in its interactions with the people, according to the laws of Minnesota. One again, the officer was not there enjoying his morning dump. He was there specifically looking to entrap people. I understand the point you have been attempting to make for a day now, about Craig's actions being an invasion of the other person's (in this case an officer) privacy.

I'm not disputing that Craig did anything wrong - he did. Okay, so let's not miss the argument. We agree that Craig did something wrong. I am disputing the legality and constitutionality of the arrest. And I'm right to do so, because it is at best - and I'm being awful generous here - shaky.

Let's arrest people when they break the law, yes - let's just do it in a constitutionally sound way. There is a better alternative, as the ACLU mentions, that would both be more effective as a deterrent and also unambiguously meet constitutional requirements. Can you not agree with me on that?

I apologize for my questioning your motives - but this post is the first time you've said anything to even try to further explain the same analogy you've posted something like six other times without ever addressing any responses to it. It did make me wonder. Nevertheless, I do take back my comment.

[rucky]

183. True dat, BUT...

the foot-tapping signals was the basis of the sting operation. Wouldn't that be seen as consent? I think that leads us back to "no crime"

Plus an admission that Craig was looking for sex.

Plus the hypocricy of another republican turning to the ACLU for help.

[xchrom]

33. well -- if it's legal and private -- then

i might as well stay home.

:bounce:

[Berry Cool]

34. So, if some idiot chick wants to get on her cell phone the second she hits the pot

and call everyone she knows and jaw like there's no tomorrow...I have no recourse if I'm in the next stall and don't want her other parties to listen to my "sounds"...and I have to try not to hear what she's saying...because she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?

And if I have to go desperately badly, and she's sitting there in the stall forever because she's not done talking...I have to hold it and wait, because she can stay in there as long as she wants to complete her call, and to hell with what I need?

That's nice to know. Thanks, ACLU!

[pnwmom]

37. If she's going to sit there on the phone, then make all the sounds you like.

Nobody on the other end of the phone will know it's you.

He or she will think the noisemaker is HER.

[Perry Logan]

35. Only sex in the White House is public.

[Clark2008]

38. That's just stupid.

Look, I don't care if Larry Craig - or anyone who is an adult and not coerced - wants to have gay sex, straight sex, sex with multiple partners, but I do NOT want my son walking into a restroom with the moans and groans of pleasure occurring in the next stall.

Obviously, it's NOT private.

[Laughing Mirror]

69. Hw do you know your son might not secretly want to join in?

The level of self-righteousness on this thread, as in all of the threads on Craig, is always what amuses me most about them.

People hide behind and use their own children as some sort of protective human shield, protecting them and their prejudices and self-righteousness and just the general ickiness they may feel talking about a sexual phenomenon that has nothing to do with their precious children.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

72. Bullshit.

Children do use public bathrooms. Maybe you don't have kids, but sending sons into a bathroom unattended happens to be a problem for many people because of pedophiles. And we don't want them hearing two gay guys having sex. Hell, I don't know anyone who thinks its ok for their ten or eleven year old son to hear ANYONE having sex. And, yeah, I do find it QUITE ICKY for two people to be having sex in the stall next to my son, my daughter, or MYSELF!

My husband and I don't have sex two feet away from our kids, and we'd rather not ANYONE have sex two feet away from them. Thanks very much. You can do that at home or other more proper venues.

Geesh. A little common sense goes a long way.Kids use airport bathrooms. It's not the same venue as a gay bar!

[Laughing Mirror]

77. Got any statistics on child molesters in men's rooms?

And even if you do, what does Craig's case, which involved no sex, not even touching, between a cop and a senator in a public men's room stall, have to do with what you call pedophiles?

I was a little boy once too, and yes, I heard about the bogeyman. But he was supposed to be lurking on the street in front of my house, ready to sweep me way. He wasn't cruising the busy downtown public men's rooms at the bus stations, or the six floor men's room at the big dept store. So my parents did not bat an eye when I used those facilities. They were just scared about us kids playing in the street. That's where we'd be abducted when the bogeyman came calling.

So if parents are having problems with pedophiles in mens rooms what kinds of problems are they having with an airport men's room, a men's room complete with cops sitting in stalls, lying in waiting to arrest men they've lured there in "airport layover fun" ads on places such as Craigslist?

Unless your kids are actively seeking out sex with strangers or even cops in airport men's rooms, and responding to ads on Craigslist, I don't see much of what you have to worry about. It looks to me like mass hysteria.

[mondo joe]

97. None are needed. No one - children or adults - needs to be subjected to being

observed in bathroom stalls, or having to observe others having sex in them.

[pnwmom]

127. In Craig's case, he invaded the privacy of a very young looking

police officer, by sticking his hands and feet into the officer's stall. Craig SHOULD have been been charged with intruding into the officer's privacy -- as even the ACLU has acknowledged! But since the prosecutor allowed Craig to instead plead to lesser charges, now Craig is making the argument that he should be entitled to his OWN privacy. What garbage.

When my children were younger, a police officer came to their elementary school and, in a discussion on "stranger danger" warned us about specific store bathrooms that we should avoid -- one of which was in a store my children and I frequently went to. Parents who want to protect their children aren't being hysterical. They're being good parents.

[Laughing Mirror]

143. That very young hot cop, Sgt Karsnia was luring people to that stall by ads on internet

And then busting them (41 in all) once they showed up for the RDV. That's nice.

What are you going to charge Sgt Karsnia and his partner with? False advertising? Bait and switch?

Parents whose mental projections of imagined child molesters lurking on ever corner, and in every public men's room stall, do no one any favors hiding their illusions behind their innocent children, who in turn pick up the parents stupid fears themselves. That's being a lousy parent in my book.

[mondo joe]

150. Craig had no way to know whether the person in the stall he was PEEKING at wanted

to participate in his little fantasy or not. What may have brought Craig there is not relevant.

[Laughing Mirror]

165. Yes Craig might have thought there was interest on the part of Karsnia

Because Sgt Karsia did make those encouraging moves with his own foot, remember, once the stall become empty and Craig occupied it.

From Karsnia's report, we know that Craig seemed to be staring at Karsnia, but we don't know what Karsnia was doing. What was Karsnia doing with his own eyes? Staring back? If you've ever cruised anyboy you know that if you return the stare that is extended to you, the starer is going to interpret that as interest on your part to take it farther. Is something like this what happened? We don't know what Karsnia might have been doing with eyes to lead Craig on. The report doesn't say, and certainly Craig is not going to say. So we can only speculate.

In playing ove possible scenarios, if you have nothing better to do, see what happens if you shift your viewpoint (or view) from the eyes of Sgt Karsnia sitting in stall looking out at Craig, to Craig looking in. Ask yourself what you as Karsnia are doing with your eyes, since it's one of the things he forgot to include in his report.

You say what may have brought Craig there is not relevant. What brought Karsnia there? Is that not relevant too?

[mondo joe]

166. Craig spent time peering into the stall BEFORE any "moves" with any feet. Be honest please.

You are fallaciously holding everyone to some cruising standard in which being cruised while in a bathroom stall is considered expected and something of the default, with people having to opt out of it.

But whatever Craig thought he saw, by even peering to begin with he already broke the law and violated another person's privacy.

[Laughing Mirror]

171. I'm not fallaciously doing anything

If you read my post, you will see that I had Sgt Karsnia moving his feet once Sen Craig gets in the stall, and not before, per Karsnia's report.

This is not to say that Karsnia was not moving his foot or making google eyes at Craig on the other side of the stall to get him in the stall so he could bust him. Karsnia wanted this to happen as much as Craig did, don't forget. And don't be fooled by one side of the story. Try to see both sides.

[mondo joe]

174. Craig's peering into the stal PRECEDED anything Karsnia may have done.

Craig already broke the law by trying to see Karsnia in the stall.

[Laughing Mirror]

176. Yeah yeah you were there, you know everything about the case

The cops are always in the right, everybody else in the wrong.

Yeah yeah. You're right. You always are.

[mondo joe]

178. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If not you're just making shit up.

[Laughing Mirror]

180. Actually you are the one making stuff up

Your mind just can't stop accusing me of things that do not exist.

It's all right. I understand.

[mondo joe]

182. Are you now pretending that Lary Craig didn't peer into the stall?

[Laughing Mirror]

197. NO, you are

[pnwmom]

249. You keep denying your own posts. Clearly someone else is impersonating

you here.

[pnwmom]

248. Neither Craig nor any of his lawyers has ever said the cop initiated the

contact in the bathroom. Craig said he had a "wide stance" and said nothing about the cop's foot tapping. And he had some other lame excuse about his hand going into the other side of the stall. If the cop had initiated the eye contact, or otherwise initiated the contact, I'm sure Craig would have said so.

[pnwmom]

246. No one should feel they have to keep both their feet absolutely still

while in a bathroom or they might be subject to unwanted advances from strange men cruising for sex.

[pnwmom]

193. If someone is staring into your bathroom stall, the natural inclination

for most people would be to be very uncomfortable. And you might meet that gaze in order to keep their eyes off other areas. Or you might look back in disbelief that someone is staring at you that way.

Molesters are good at projecting their own feelings onto others. Craig could be staring into a stall and imagining that someone is staring back with interest, when that person is actually thinking: what the hell are you doing -- leave me alone.

[Laughing Mirror]

195. If you are interested you stare back, if not you don't

Simple as that, mom. That's the way cruising works. Your gay dad possibly felt no need to teach you that.

And of course you are dragging molesters into this, making that happy amalgam between man to man sex and child molesters.

If I was a parent with a boy, I'd be more concerned about sending him to a church, and what the priest or the evangelical pastor might be up to, than completely irrational fears about what is not happening in airport men's rooms.

[mondo joe]

202. by the time someone is making eye contact with someone in a bathroom stall they have already

violated the law and another's privacy.

[Laughing Mirror]

204. violated what law again?

Read the ACLU memo, the links are posted elsewhere in this thread:

The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. Id. (“The State cannot ... mak ... private sexual conduct a crime.”). It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the
proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom. See Pryor v. Municipal Court, 599 P.2d 636, 645-46 (Cal. 1979) (recognizing that public proposition of private sex may not be made a crime).

There's a lot of other compelling law in the memo you might be interested in taking a look at.

[mondo joe]

206. Disorderly conduct, for the violation of privacy, regardless of what happened next. NT

[Laughing Mirror]

208. Disorderly conduct language too broad to apply to Craig

Once again, save yourself some trouble and read the ACLU memo:

The Minnesota law under which defendant was charged and to which he pled
guilty punishes “offensive, obscene or abusive language” which reasonably tends to
arouse “alarm, anger or resentment” if the speaker knows or has reasonable grounds to
know it will tend to “alarm, anger or disturb” others. Minn. Stat. § 609.72(1)(3).

It is long established law that speech may not be made a crime solely because a
listener could be offended, disturbed, alarmed or even angered by its content: “If there is
a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not
prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 409, 414 (1989) (citations omitted) (law
against flag desecration cannot be upheld on the basis others will be angered by acts it
covers); see also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971) (holding that, “so long as
the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability,”
and striking down conviction for wearing words “fuck the draft” in a public place)

Since the law the state has applied to this defendant makes it a crime to use
offensive language, and since the use of offensive language alone cannot be made a
crime, the law is unconstitutionally overbroad on its face. The Minnesota Supreme Court
said as much almost 30 years ago. In In re S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d 412, 418-419 (1978), the
Court held that because section 609.72(1)(3) applied not to language which would incite
a breach of the peace—which could be prohibited—but to “offensive, obscene or abusive
language,” it was overbroad and vague. Unless it could be narrowed by construction the
Court held, it violated the First Amendment. In re S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 418-419


The Minnesota Law Under Which Defendant Was Charged Is
Overbroad As Applied to Sexual Speech as Well....

[mondo joe]

211. I disagree with the ACLU. So will the court. And violating others' privacy isn't free speech. NT

[Laughing Mirror]

216. The US constitution disagrees with you

But boy, you sure did digest that ACLU 12-page memo pretty quickly.

[mondo joe]

218. It's the court's job to interpret the Constitution. We'll see what they decide.

:-)

[Laughing Mirror]

221. They already have, as you are no doubt discovering reading the memo

Even places like Richmond Virginia. Imagine that.

[mondo joe]

223. No court has found a constitutonal right to peer into others' stalls in public restrooms,

or to have sex there.

[Laughing Mirror]

224. Umm ....

Thus, courts all over America have held that an invitation to have lawful sex may
not be made a crime. See, e.g., Provo City Corp. v. Willden, 768 P.2d 455, 459 (Utah
1989) (“Unfortunately, in its zeal to eliminate offensive behavior, the City has
chosen to fashion a tool that sweeps far too deeply into the protected province of the first
amendment.”); New York v. Uplinger, 447 N.E.2d 62, 63 (N.Y. 1983) (“Inasmuch as the
conduct ultimately contemplated by the loitering statute may not be deemed criminal, we
perceive no basis upon which the State may continue to punish loitering for that
purpose.”); Pedersen v. City of Richmond, 254 S.E.2d 95, 98 (Va. 1979) (“It would be
illogical and untenable to make solicitation of a non-criminal act a criminal offense.”);
Oregon v. Tusek, 630 P.2d 892, 895 (Or. Ct. App. 1981) (“The statute as it now stands
. . . makes it a crime to ask another person to participate in an act which is not itself a
crime. We find ourselves in agreement with .”); Cherry v.
Maryland, 306 A.2d 634, 640 (Md. Ct. App. 1973) (“While solicitation to commit a
crime may properly be proscribed, it would be anomalous to punish someone for
soliciting another to commit an act which is itself not a crime.”)

The risk of conviction for inviting someone to have lawful sex is real and
substantial, as the cases cited above demonstrate all too well. Because Section
609.72(1)(3) draws no distinction between invitations to have sex in private and
invitations to have sex in public, and instead makes liability turn on whether the speech is
“offensive, obscene or abusive,” it is overbroad when applied to sexual speech just as it
was when applied to insults hurled at police officers. 1 See S.L.J., 263 N.W.2d at 418-19

[mondo joe]

225. Your reading comprehension assist follows:

"Thus, courts all over America have held that an invitation to have lawful sex may
not be made a crime."

Craig was not charged with making an invitation to have lawful sex.

Secondarily, sex in public restrooms is not lawful.

[Laughing Mirror]

228. ...not lawful, except when it is

Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381
U.S. 479 (1965); Doe v. Ventura, No. MC 01-489, 2001 WL 543734 (Minn. Dist. Ct.,
Hennepin County, May 15, 2001). Thus, the government may make sex a crime only
where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. See Lawrence v.
Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). The government does not have a constitutionally
sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. Id. (“The State cannot . . . mak
. . . private sexual conduct a crime.”). It follows that an invitation to have private sex is
constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the
proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom. See Pryor v.
Municipal Court, 599 P.2d 636, 645-46 (Cal. 1979) (recognizing that public proposition
of private sex may not be made a crime).

[mondo joe]

229. More reading comprehension assistance here:

"The government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so."

No court has found that prohibition of sex in public restrooms is not thus justified.

"The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime."

No court has found that having sex in public areas can be considered "private sex".

"An invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the
proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom."

Indeed. But Craig was not charged with inviting sex, so this is not relevant.

[pnwmom]

238. Your mistake is that you're equating one legal brief with settled law.

A brief is an argument. The other side will make their own argument. Then the judge will decide.

[Laughing Mirror]

212. You can't violate the privacy of somebody who's agreed to have sex with you

That is, via the foot movement of Sgt Karsnia & Sen Craig. That is why Craig could not be charged with violation of privacy. He was charged and pled guilty to disorderly conduct, a law whose language is too broad in Minnesota to apply to what was actually going down between the cop and the senator, an invitation to sex, which is not illegal between two men, according to law, even public restrooms.

Once again,

"The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. Id. (“The State cannot . . . mak . . . private sexual conduct a crime.”). It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the
proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom. See Pryor v. Municipal Court, 599 P.2d 636, 645-46 (Cal. 1979) (recognizing that public proposition
of private sex may not be made a crime)."

[mondo joe]

214. Your sequence is messed up. The peering was the first thing that took place.

From the moment Craig decided to look into the stall he was guilty of disorderly conduct.

[pnwmom]

253. Or, if not, then of interference with privacy, which was actually

the more serious charge.

[pnwmom]

251. Moving your foot doesn't mean you agree to have sex.

In Craig's dreams, it did. But it's not part of the general lexicon.

[pnwmom]

250. The "interference with privacy" law that Craig was originally accused of,

but which was dropped in a plea deal, and which the ACLU didn't address.

Peering into an occupied bathroom stall is clearly interference with soneone's privacy, as even the ACLU would agree.

[pnwmom]

242. Adults can be molested, too. Anyone who persists in unwanted sexual

behavior can be a molester, whether the object is a child or an adult.

The word "child" modifies the word "molester" -- it's not a redundancy.

You seem to think it's nothing for a gay young man to receive unwanted attention in a bathroom. I don't think gay and straight youth are that different. I'm straight, and like virtually every woman I have been made deeply uncomfortable, to the point of feeling unsafe, by unwanted attention from men. (Not in bathrooms, thank goodness.) I have no reason to think that a gay teenager couldn't feel the same way.

Just because a teenager is gay doesn't mean he couldn't feel threatened by the attention of a leering older man, ESPECIALLY in a place where he was physically vulnerable and had the expectation of PRIVACY.

[pnwmom]

192. People who think children might benefit from watching adults have sex

in the stall next to them would make terrible parents.

[Laughing Mirror]

196. Since these are your own twisted thoughts and no one else's on this board

your thoughts can apply only to yourself.

[pnwmom]

240. Someone else must be posting in your name, because at post 157 you said

"The hypothetical 7-seven old you are so frightened for might enjoyed watching or at least learned something as a voyeur."

[proud2BlibKansan]

102. One reason this case really resonates with me

is that when I was 16 and my sister was 6, I took her to the circus. She had to use the restroom so I took her in there and we stood in line waiting for a stall to open. As we stood there, we could see two girls in a stall having sex. My sister screamed. It really freaked her out.

I have absolutely no problem with women or men having sex with each other. I also don't object to women and men having sex with each other. But don't do it in a public restroom where children could walk in and see you. That is obscene. And for that reason, I hope Larry Craig loses his case.

[Laughing Mirror]

148. What are you going to do with the poor child who opens the stall door on a man ...

sitting on toilet in stall masturbating all by his lonesome.

Is that obscene to you? Do you think it would be for your boy?

If your sister screamed at two girls giving each other pleasure, imagine what her reaction would have been had the two girls been inflicting on each other pain.

[proud2BlibKansan]

155. Well first of all, we need to teach our children not to open the stall door

And that's not what happened. We could see through the crack in the door. And it frightened her because she was 6 years old. The girls were making sounds she had never heard before. Sounds of pleasure but strange sounds to a 6 year old.

The bottom line is public restrooms are not a good place to have sex. Especially public restrooms at an event for kids, like a circus.

[Laughing Mirror]

159. Well of course public restrooms are not a good place to have sex

There are much better places.

My goodness, a 6 year old was frightened by something of absolutely no importance. But it ruined her life, huh?

[mondo joe]

161. More importantly: having sex in public restrooms is illegal. No matter how much you wish

otherwise.

[Laughing Mirror]

177. If it comforts you to project your own mad illusions onto me, be my guest

But you are only hurting yourself.

[pnwmom]

254. You're the one projecting. See your post 157.

No one else here has tried to imagine a benefit for anyone, young or old, who might run across men having sex in bathroom stalls, or who have to listen to the activities in the stall next to them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

185. Show me where I said it ruined her life

Then tell my why it's okay for a 6 year old to watch anyone having sex.

[Laughing Mirror]

199. Ever heard of hyperbole as a rhetorical device?

If your child walks in on you having sex, what you are going to do. You know what it is. Will the child understand what it is? Is it OK for a child to watch animals having sex? Where does this terror of human sexuality, as it is today, end?

[Feron]

78. I'm no prude, but if you want to hookup

get a hotel room or find another non-public place for intercourse. A bathroom stall is a place to rid yourself of bodily waste, not a private do as you please booth.

If you like anonymous sex, then good for you. However there's a time and place for everything and a public restroom ain't that place.

And while I don't have children, I understand why parents would not want their child exposed to sex in that manner. Additionally it puts a child, especially a younger one, using the bathroom alone in an awkward position.

Straight or gay coupling it doesn't matter, it simply isn't appropriate public behavior.

[raccoon]

84. I second that emotion. nt

[Laughing Mirror]

86. Don't tell me, tell the Minneapolis cops, tell Larry Craig

They are the ones engaged in this inappropriate public (behind closed doors private) behavior, not me.

[pnwmom]

244. You're the one defending it and saying it might benefit young people to watch.

See your post 157.

[proud2BlibKansan]

187. I completely agree.

:thumbsup:

[mondo joe]

91. If your son wishes to commit a crime, one is well advised to prevent it. NT

[Laughing Mirror]

145. If your son wishes to commit a crime

Maybe he will. In any case, there's nothing you can do about it Mom.

[Djinn]

113. Helen Lovejoys everywhere unfortunately

"WONT SOMEONE PLEEEEAAASSSEE THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

I live in a tiny flat and at night can hear my upstairs neighbour peeing - all these people that think their kids would be damaged by hearing sex clearly live in nice big properties in the suburbs

[Laughing Mirror]

147. Think of the perfect protected child hearing retches & vomiting going in the next stall ....

Or a man masturbating, by himself, complete with stifled groans in the next stall.

And in the stall next to that, a nasty case of diarrhea not only stinking the joint up but making so much nasty noise, echos of it seem to spatter off the tile walls. Eeew yuch.

Protect the children from the life itself and they'll never die, I guess is the dumb reasoning behind these hysterics.

[mondo joe]

152. Comparison between a non-optional bathroom function and choosing to violate others'

privacy is fallacious.

[Laughing Mirror]

167. non optional bathroom function

what the hell kind of language is that? I don't understand it. Speak simply please.

[mondo joe]

172. Try an online dictionary. The prefix NON, the words OPTIONAL and FUNCTION are pretty

standard English. The word Bathroom I think you already know, despite having some confused notions about its purpose.

[Laughing Mirror]

175. While you're teaching me English, men's room is better than bathroom

Unless there are tubs and bathing going on in there.

[Quantess]

281. what's a non-optional bathroom function?

is that like a non-negotiable bathroom function?

[pnwmom]

270. Having to relieve oneself in a toilet literally inches away from two people having sex

can't be compared to the experience of hearing, through the ceiling, the sound of an upstairs neighbor peeing.

[pnwmom]

122. How do you know that son isn't seven years old?

My father was gay, so don't accuse me of homophobia, please. I also am the mother of a son, and frequently had to send him into public restrooms by himself.

No one should be having sex in a public place inches away from other, uninvolved people -- but especially not inches away from children.

[mondo joe]

151. The poster you'rearguing with has a one track mind.

Even though other male posters - including other gay posters - have told him they were hit on in restrooms as teenagers, he persists in his notion that this is purely consensual activity and that the police are somehow in the wrong.

[Laughing Mirror]

198. Police can't find a better way to supress men's room sex than this?

That has always been the one and only point I have constantly been trying to make, and apparently failing.

So we were hit on in men's rooms as teenagers. So fucking what. We lived to tell the tale.

How many of us were abducted and raped in men's rooms as little boys? Or did this just happen only in church?

[mondo joe]

205. This way seems to work.

And in the follow up the officer was as kind and humane as could be in the circumstance.

It's not the police's fault that a small minority of people have decided public restrooms are there for sex.

[Laughing Mirror]

207. Well this is what ACLU says, and their job is to study the law to protect our liberties

"The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy. The ACLU is in no way advocating sex in public bathrooms. If law enforcement is genuinely interested in stopping sex in public bathrooms rather than ensnaring people in sting operations, posting a sign prohibiting it and announcing police patrols would be much more effective and would meet constitutional requirements."

But if depraved police snare tactics used to "control" this behavior is your still you cup of tea after all these decades of court decisions shooting down the legality of just that, then welcome back to the dim dark era circa 1957. Enjoy your stay in that wonderland, and have fun.

[mondo joe]

209. And sometimes the ACLU, love it though I do, is wrong. NT

[Laughing Mirror]

215. And sometimes, though I love you, you are too

Welcome to 1957!

[mondo joe]

217. No, welcome to 2007. Gay men don't have to use public restrooms to have sex.

You seem to have a hard time adjusting to that. But I forgive you.

[Laughing Mirror]

219. You simply want to roll back all the laws and stroke the public fears

Read the memo and enlighten yourself.

[mondo joe]

222. Roll back which laws? There are no new laws that permit sex in public restrooms.

And if you think the courts are going to find a constitutional right to have sex in airport restrooms you are totally delusional.

[Laughing Mirror]

226. I am simply reading the ACLU memo, which has lots of case law

What else is there to say to someone who is not willing to calm his mind 10 minutes to actually read the memo on a subject he knows nothing about.

[mondo joe]

227. Which laws specifically do you claim I want rolled back?

[Laughing Mirror]

232. The laws against cops sitting on toilets ensnaring people, for one

Gay rights groups fought long and hard in the 60s & 70s to stop that behavior on the part of law enforcement. You might have heard of Franklin Kameny. Kameny was in the military and then an astronomer I think at Naval Observatory (next to Vice president's house), and he lost it all in 1957 when he was busted in one of thee police operations at the cruisy public men's room in Lafayette Park, across the street from White House. So unemployed, he became founder of early gay rights group in DC (where I'm from) the DC Mattachine society. One of the things they did was try to stop police harrassment, not only in men's rooms (that was minor, but symbolic), but in bars & other public meeting places. It was a terribly repressive society for gay people. Gay men could meet in bars over drinks, but could not touch. If there was music being played, we couldn't dance together. A woman had to be present. It was that climate of fear that reigned in the gay community that we were trying to erase in the 1960s and 70s.

To make a long story short, after pressure from gay groups and civil rights groups, the police finally did decided that they had better fish to fry than repeated harrassment of gays. If two men were having sex somewhere, these "crimes" were, at worst, victimless crimes. And so, the cops disbanded the morals prostitution & perversion squad, which did away with the entrapment teams. And I assume that they found more effective ways of dealing with the public nuisance of sex in men's rooms, because you never heard any more about it after that. That was that. We were getting rights. The cops were no longer raiding our bars. Baths opened up, and super clubs in old warehouse with DJs mixing dance records. Yes, boys and boys, girl and girls, we could dance together now.

To tell you the truth, when this Craig thing came out I was startled. I thought that cops staking out men's rooms was something that had gone out in the 1970s. I couldn't believe they were starting it up again. In Minneapolis of all places. And using the internet to lure men there. I ask myself why.

Maybe you think using the police force in this way is normal, and maybe you are right. Maybe it is in today's America. All I can say then, is that I've lived outside of the country for the better part of the last 25 years, and this seemingly acceptable practice of ensnaring people for doing nothing wrong looks like regression to me.

[mondo joe]

233. Sorry but you failed to answer me. WHICH LAWS do you claim I want rolled back?

[Laughing Mirror]

234. The laws cited in the memo you refuse to read

Good night!

[mondo joe]

235. You didn't cite any laws. So I'll help you, again:

I support free speech.

I do not support any imagined right to intrude on the privacy of others, and there is no law giving people the right to peer into restroom stalls. There is no such law there that I want rolled back.

I support the right of people to privacy in their sexual activity, including having whatever sex they like with other adults, provided they violate no one else's rights in doing so.

I do not support any imagined right to make others have to endure your sexual activity in a relatively public space, and there is no such law that I want rolled back.

[pnwmom]

277. Guess what? It's 2007. Gay people have more options now.

I have sympathy for people like Craig who are stuck in shame and self-hatred, so they cruise for anonymous sex rather than admit to themselves and the world they are gay.

But this is dysfunctional behavior, not something to be defended.

[pnwmom]

275. There is nothing enlightened about having sex in a public bathroom.

Just pathetic.

[Djinn]

245. so being hit on is a violation?

Wow, better arrest pretty much every man on earth then. Why is it that guys seem to think it's offensive for another man to say to them "how 'bout it" but that they can turn around and do the same to a woman, who'll be called frigid if she objects?

Being propositioned is not an assault nor an invasion of privacy.

How hard is it to say "no thanks"

[mondo joe]

256. Did I say it was?

?

[Djinn]

260. you certainly implied it

The poster you'rearguing with has a one track mind.
Even though other male posters - including other gay posters - have told him they were hit on in restrooms as teenagers, he persists in his notion that this is purely consensual activity and that the police are somehow in the wrong.

If you weren't claiming that being hit on by men was traumatic or wrong what exactly was your point?

[mondo joe]

261. 1. My reference was to adults hitting on teenagers; 2 I was addressing the poster's

depiction of this as a purely consensual activity.

I don't know that a 35 year old hitting on a 15 year old trying to use the bathroom is consensual or legal.

[Djinn]

262. what?

Why is it any less consensual than the men who hit on me without invitation? and have done so since I was in my teens?

Why do you feel you need to protect males from something that's generally viewed as part of human interaction?

I think you should examine why you believe being hit on by another man is detrimental.

Besides even if you believe that any adult hitting on any teenager is traumatic (and frankly that's ridiculous) this is irrelevant.

You are bringing in the "paedo" argument often thrown in to discussions about male/male sex and it's an appalling dog whistle.

We're talking about consensual adults here I doubt very much that the ACLU has said it should be OK to have sex with minors so it's irrelevant

[mondo joe]

265. I didn't say it was more or less consensual than you being hit on.

I said it was non consensual.

Why do I feel the need to protect teens from being hit on by adults? Because a lot of teens are below the age of consent.

I don't think being hit on by another man is detrimental. I like it. I'm gay.

As to the "trauma" of teens being hit on by adults, that was your choice of words - not mine.

[Djinn]

266. again

So what if kids are below the age of consent - if something is not at all detrimental then there is absolutely no need to protect people from it.

Just because it would be illegal for a 35 year old to have sex with a 15 year old that doesn't make getting hit on something one needs to be protected from

YOU injected teens being hit on by adults in a thread about the ACLU view's on CONSESNSUAL ADULT activities.

Why would you do that?

[mondo joe]

267. My point about teens was not a direct response to the ACLU's position but to a poster's

set of arguments about sex in public bathrooms.

You will not find posts in which I have equated the ACLU's position to one of teens being hit on by adults, because I haven't done such a thing.

[pnwmom]

278. If it's illegal for a 35 year old to have sex with a 15 year old -- and it is, in

most states -- then it's also illegal for the 35 year old to proposition the 15 year old to have sex.

Mondo Joe didn't inject the issue of teens into this thread. The argument that children, often alone, have to use public bathrooms was brought up by others here, and it's a concern I share.

[pnwmom]

274. Wouldn't you feel alarmed if you were sitting in an otherwise empty public restroom

and a man walked in and put his face up to the crack between the wall and the door -- and kept looking?

And then entered the stall adjoining yours and stuck his foot and his hand under the wall?

Why can't you imagine that a teenage youth, gay or straight, might feel unsafe in the same circumstances that would feel unsafe to a woman?

[pnwmom]

273. I doubt it would be legal in most states, given age-of-consent laws.

[pnwmom]

272. It could well be traumatic for a teenager to be harrassed by an older man

in a restroom. And scary, too. Imagine a teenager sitting in a stall with his pants down, and no one else is in the bathroom. Then an older larger man enters and puts his face up to the crack in between the door and the wall. Why wouldn't the teenager feel vulnerable and even frightened? Why should a leering older man assume that his attentions would be welcomed?

[pnwmom]

271. We're not talking about being propositioned.

What woman wouldn't be disturbed by a man peering in at them while they're in the bathroom, or by a man's hands and feet intruding into their stall? And many young men would be disturbed by the same thing.

[Laughing Mirror]

157. What exactly are you afraid of for your seven year old son?

That he's going to see two men getting it on?

What if he is gay? Do you think children have no thoughts or practice of sex?

Listen, I knew I was gay when I was 7, even before I was 7. And so were my two childhood friends a year older than me, Mark & Mel. We knew we were gay then and we still are today. Mel even had the same boyfriend from the age of 9 to about 12. It wouldn't have freaked us out the three of us in the least, to see two men together anywhere, so completely uninterested were we in little girls or hetero sex.

The hypothetical 7-seven old you are so frightened for might enjoyed watching or at least learned something as a voyeur. But then, the second he would have swung open the door, the activity in stall would more than likely have immediately halted. Who would want to get caught in the act? Even by a 7 year old.

Just for the record mom, it wasn't until I was 12 or 13 did I come to understand the purpose of those big shopping bags on the floor in the stalls of the men's room on the 6th floor of the dept store, and why those bags always seemed to shift around the stall floor seeming on their own volition. I didn't realize as a 7-year-old boy that those bags didn't move on their own, feet were be standing in them.

Anyway, who am I to accuse you of homophobia? Why are you attacking yourself with a weapon I have not used against you. Why would I accuse you of homophobia when I'm just thanking God Almighty that you were not my parent.

[mondo joe]

162. Your charge of homphobia is ridiculous. Most parents don't want kids directly

exposed to any people having sex, regardless of the genders.

Furthermore, even adults don't need to be exposed to other people's intimate activities. I'm a gay adult and I don't want that shit going on either.

[Laughing Mirror]

169. What charge of homophobia?

Whom did I call a homophobe? Who? Where?

Your illusions have so clouded your thoughts, you're starting to make things up.

[mondo joe]

170. Your charge was implicit in accusing others of it being about whether their kids are gay or not. NT

[Laughing Mirror]

173. Imagining things again

That's OK. Nothing personal. The human condition, and all.

[mondo joe]

213. No, you explicitly tried to make it about the orientation of the kid:

"What if he is gay?"

Gay kids have the same rights as all other kids, and that included not having to be hit on by adults and not having to be exposed to adult sex through the thoughtless actions of others.

[pnwmom]

188. And explicit in saying that those who disagree with him

feel a "general ickiness" about homosexual activity.

[pnwmom]

186. Your post #69, in which you accuse those who disagree with you

of feeling a "general ickiness" about homosexual activity.

That attitude would be homophobic.

[Laughing Mirror]

179. I made no charge of homophobia anywhere on this thread. You're imagining things

Your mind keeps making things up and convinces you they're real, but they're not.

They are your mind-made lies and they affect me in no way because they are false.

But they are bad for you because they discredit everything else you write.

[mondo joe]

181. Perhaps you're right - perhaps the homophobia is yours.

After all, you are the one who suggested that gay kids don't need or desire the same sort of protection that non-gay kids get.

Tch tch.

[pnwmom]

189. So you think that feeling a "general ickiness" about gay sex is NOT homophobic?

Hard to believe.

[Laughing Mirror]

190. delete

[Laughing Mirror]

194. It was my response to a poster who was worried that moans and groans of pleasure ...

his son might hear in a stall.

This is what I wrote (quoting myself):

"People hide behind and use their own children as some sort of protective human shield, protecting them and their prejudices and self-righteousness and just the general ickiness they may feel talking about a sexual phenomenon that has nothing to do with their precious children." Sexual phenomenon: men's room sex.

I am obviously referring to the "ick" feelings people always bring up in these threads. I'm not referring to my own, and I am most definitely not referring to what you call gay sex. I am a gay man.

Moreover, I would like to know what does gay sex necessarily have to do with men's room trysts between straight men, or specifically the case between Sen Craig and Sgt Karsnia. Craig says he straight. Has Sgt Karsnia said he's gay?

Reading other peoples's response, there are sometimes people who feel the general ickiness, it seems, about sex in general, sometimes maybe to what you call "gay" sex, but mostly on these Craig threads to the phenomenon of men's room sex, which as probably you know is not always between gay men. In fact, a study done back in the 70s by gay activist groups revealed that most men arrested in men's rooms identified themselves as heterosexual. Straight men doing this on the sly in places where there are other men looking for the same thing. Is that gay sex? I'm gay and it is not gay sex to me, because although it's done between two men, they may be men who call themselves straight, and on the down low, behaving this way out of desperation & fear, the opposite of love, and gay love.

Without boring you about who I am, suffice it to say, I'm a happy gay man of 54, my husband of 11 years is sitting by my side at his computer. If you said to him I had a general ickiness about gay sex, he would think you'd gone crazy, and I would have to agree with him.

Do you want me to ask him and post his response?

You responded to one of my earlier posts saying something about "don't call me a homophobe" when I had not even spoken to you and had called no one nowhere any such thing. Is that what you're now calling me?

If it is, of all the things I've been called in my life, that's really the funniest.

[pnwmom]

258. I was being sarcastic. Obviously, very little could make you go "ick."

Glad you could see the humor.

But in another post you claimed that you had never accused anyone of homophobia. However, the above claim (that people who were concerned about kids being exposed to bathroom sex were hiding behind their children because of their own feeling of "ickiness") -- is clearly equivalent to saying that these parents, including me, were homophobes.

Bullshit about Craig being straight. He's lying, probably even to himself, because he's afraid. His family life and his career are both threatened. But he has a long history of this type of behavior. He's obviously a closeted gay man, filled with shame and self-hate, who has developed this habit of acting out his sexual needs. He's no more straight than former Dem. Gov. Jim McGreevey, who finally came out as a gay man after two wives, two children, and decades of the same kind of furtive behavior.

[pnwmom]

184. Anyone who thinks 7 year olds should be voyeurs to adult sexual activities

is veering dangerously close to the mental mindset of a pedophile.

The reason I mentioned homophobia is that you accused another reasonable poster of being homophobic, so I expected you would regard me the same way.

[Djinn]

252. Did ANYONE here say that

Has a single person suggested that children SHOULD be "voyeurs to adult sexual activities" no they havn't.

That is a typical response from those prone to hysterical "think of the children" nonsense. People have simply stated that a child would not be damaged by this anymore than the millions of people who saw their parents having sex were (far more disturbing because euw it's my parents)

If a child is so young and innocent then why would they even equate grunting with sex? Just tell them the person in the stall must have been constipated.

Accusations of a mindset close to paedophilia are extremely offensive. If you honestly think hearing a groan or seeing someone screwing is akin to being molested then you're a moron.

[mondo joe]

264. Yes, actually. See Post #157.

"The hypothetical 7-seven old you are so frightened for might enjoyed watching or at least learned something as a voyeur."

[pnwmom]

279. Did anyone? Yeah, the person I was directly answering, at post 157.

You might try to read a thread before you jump in.

[dorkulon]

39. I've never disagreed with the ACLU before, but...

"people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy."

How the hell does that make any sense? It's very clear that if you're boinking in a public restroom, people can walk in at any time, and they're bound to notice all the huffing and puffing--there's just nothing private about it, and how could anyone expect it to be?


:hurts:

[Iggo]

58. At first glance...

...I'd have to say it makes sense in the same way that people taking a shit in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy...levels of expectation and amounts of privacy notwithstanding.

[dorkulon]

59. Apples and oranges

That's like saying it's okay to shit in a tanning booth.

[Iggo]

87. I didn't say it's okay to shit in a tanning booth.

I was talking about the expectation of privacy.

You called apples and oranges...then prooceeded to back it up with an apples and oranges argument.

[dorkulon]

99. Okay, bad example.

But I'd say that the expectation of privacy would be negated if--even if I was just pooping in there--I started banging on the walls and shouting. I mean, that'd be disturbing the peace wouldn't it?

[Political Heretic]

103. You need to read the brief, not just the media article.

[mac56]

40. Does anyone else think it's great that the ACLU is rushing in

to defend Senator Wide Stance?

I'm diggin' it. The RW hates the ACLU with a white hot passion. Yet there they are, defending their guy's ungodly behavior.

Schweet, schweet irony!! :applause:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

41. Well, They're Right. But They're Defending The Wrong Stall.

It was the privacy of the person in the other stall that was invaded, which is why Craig was charged appropriately.

[Political Heretic]

104. You mean the cop entraping Craig?

Just checking.

[blondeatlast]

44. Headline is WAY misleading (big surprise--not)

Seeing as how the story is sourced from AP, I went to the MN ACLU site myself. As a media skeptic like me might imagine, there's more to it than "supporting Larry Craig"--lots more.

Here's their news release: http://www.aclu-mn.org/home/news/acluworkstorepeallurkingor.htm

The release in its entirety:

ACLU-MN works to repeal Lurking Ordinance
The ACLU-MN has joined forces with over forty organizations to support the repeal of Minneapolis’s lurking law.The law reads: No person, in any public or private place, shall lurk, lie in wait or be concealed with intent to commit any crime or unlawful act.385.80.Minneapolis is one of a few large cities in the country that has this law.

This law is being applied extremely discriminatorilyin Minneapolis.Homeless people and people of color are targeted at a much higher rate than Caucasians.There were 167 people arrested or cited for “lurking” in the City of Minneapolis in 2006, 133 of these people, or more than 80%, were people of color.A homeless person is 20 times more likely than a non-homeless person to be cited for lurking.The ACLU-MN also opposes this law on the grounds that it is vague and allows police officers too much discretion.

Council member Cam Gordon introduced the repeal, the public hearing date has yet to be set.

What you can do to help

Sign the online petition
If you are a Minneapolis resident, call your city council member and tell them to vote to repeal the lurking ordinance. You can find your district and their contact information here
Download the facts on lurking to learn more
Invite a friend to sign the petition

[SidDithers]

46. Good post...

thanks for not believing the hype, and doing the grunt work to find what the ACLU is really doing in MN.

Cheers.

Sid

[marmar]

65. Thanks, blondeatlast. Some context is never a bad thing.....

.... That's quite different than what's implied in the OP.

[Contrary1]

71. I don't think this is the case the article was referring to. Here is the brief filed:

Pages 3, 8, and 9 address the issue of privacy in a restroom stall. No mention of lurking.

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf

[Political Heretic]

108. It's all part of the same case

[Contrary1]

116. Two different cases:

The Lurking Ordinance highlighted in post #44 refers to Minneapolis Code of Ordinances #385.80:

http://www.ststephensmpls.org/Library/upload/The%20Facts%20on%20Lurking.pdf

What the ACLU filed was an argument regarding Minnesota Statute 609.746(1)(C).

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.746&year=2006

[Political Heretic]

125. No.. well yes, what I mean is this is all part of the same case:

Brief:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.htm

And press release here:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.htm

This is the important statement:

The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy.

The article puts its own spin on it basically saying, "oh so you're arguing that everyone should just be having sex in bathroom stalls everywhere!" In reality, the ACLU's CORRECT point is that the police have no authority to initiate spying in places that have been determined to be "private" by the State Supreme Court without a warrant. In other words, what is at issue here is the entrapment, not some advocacy for mass sex in bathrooms.

[Highway61]

47. Public is public

private is private. Craig? There's a visual I didn't need first thing in the morning

[kwassa]

48. There is certainly no acoustic privacy

and depending what they are doing, and how much the stall doors cover, there may not be complete visual privacy either.

Many have been arrested in other parts of the country for having sex in public restrooms. This sounds like an unusual legal stand, to me.

[youthere]

51. I'm so glad this ruling made the news...

I was afraid people were forgetting about Sen. Craig.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

57. haha

Well, I can agree with that. :)

[spanone]

61. so if i'm confronted by a man in a public restroom, i should consider it a compliment????

[mondo joe]

62. I continue to support the ACLU, but I disagree on this. A reasonable expectation of privacy in most

public restrooms would include sufficient privacy to take a dump in it without being observed, but not enough to have sex unobserved. You can still see below the door and there is virtually no acoustic privacy.

[Political Heretic]

107. Please read the ACLU's case - not just this misleading article - before deciding an opinion.

There's a lot more going on.

[Djinn]

115. to see below most stalls where I live

you would need to bend down and peer under - anyone peering under toilet stalls hardly has a right to be offended due to hearing a few grunts

[mondo joe]

239. No one should be peering into stalls. But no one should expect a bathroom stall

to conceal sexual activity. In many areas it's easy enough to see feet, and they are not acoustically private at all.

[AlphaCentauri]

64. Can't believe it, keep everybody else out of the restroom we are having sex

and we demand privacy

:sarcasm:

[noamnety]

67. Didn't this start with him staring into the stall at someone for a full minute?

I'm not clear on how they are protecting my privacy by allowing people to watch me with their eye up against the crack in the ill-fitting door while I'm on the toilet.

[AlphaCentauri]

114. exactly, how some one will respect my privacy having sex in the stall next to me

are they going to force me to listen to their act or should I stop doing what I have to do to respect their privacy?

[kentuck]

66. Public stalls?

Can they put a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door?

[JBoy]

76. Just hang a sock on the door.

[VOX]

98. I'd be afraid that I'd just get a lump of coal.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

[electron_blue]

70. sorry. no way.

Good for the attention the ACLU is getting, but this will get shot down by an adequate lawyer pdq.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. private. nt

[Strawman]

75. I disagree

I believe sex in a public restroom stall particularly in a busy airport would tend to "call attention to itself."

Get a (private) room.

[Elspeth]

79. If I am using a bathroom stall for its usual purpose, then I DO have an expectation of privacy

That is why hidden cameras in bathroom stalls are problematic. I can see extending that argument, but I wonder if the expectation of privacy covers "between stalls" (soliciting for sex from one stall to another).

[Political Heretic]

106. Please read the ACLU information on this case. The article is pretty misleading.

There's much more going on here.

[closeupready]

82. This is red meat for ACLU haters. And that's all it is.

n/t

[Political Heretic]

105. PLEASE. READ. THE. BRIEF!! READ THE BRIEF! READ THE BRIEF! READ THE BRIEF! READ THE BRIEF!

The article, not surprisingly is very misleading.

[Guaranteed]

118. I suppose I'm open to their argument- where would one find it? nt

[Political Heretic]

124. Here:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/31842lgl20070917.html

And press release here:
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/33697prs20080116.html

This is the important statement:

The Minnesota Supreme Court and other courts have found that a closed bathroom stall is a private location. The police have no business spying on people in places where there is an expectation of privacy.

The article puts its own spin on it basically saying, "oh so you're arguing that everyone should just be having sex in bathroom stalls everywhere!" In reality, the ACLU's CORRECT point is that the police have no authority to initiate spying in places that have been determined to be "private" by the State Supreme Court without a warrant. In other words, what is at issue here is the entrapment, not some advocacy for mass sex in bathrooms.

[pnwmom]

128. What about the police officer's privacy? He was there first, sitting in his stall.

Craig invaded the officer's privacy by sticking his hands and feet into the officer's stall. He could have been charged with intruding on the officer's privacy, but he agreed to plead guilty to LESSER CHARGES.

Now the ACLU is basically arguing that there is an expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall. Therefore Craig violated the officer's expectation of privacy.

[Political Heretic]

133. You didn't even read the brief.

Know how I know, because I just posted it about five minutes ago.

I've already answered your rather "bizarre" spin take on this. You can't invade the privacy of someone who is initiating contact with you. The policeman there wasn't off duty. He wasn't there to take a dump. He was there on duty in a "sting" to trick people into soliciting him for sex. He wasn't tapping his foot reading a paper. He was trying to draw the person into the next stall into what the person in the next stall would construe as an invitation. And continued to reciprocate and encourage response.

Also, Craig is not a law enforcement officer. The issue, as I keep pointing out, is the police officer arresting Craig on the basis of information gathered in an area where the supreme court of the state has ruled a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy -- all that word "privacy" means in this case is free from the spying, search or siezure of law enforcement without due process, i.e. a warrant.

The police officer, by his own account, reciprocated as part of the "sting." Craig did not "stick his hands and feet into the stall" until the reciprocation, pretending to be an invitation, of the officer.

[pnwmom]

191. I read the brief and saw nothing to support your claim.

How, supposedly, did the officer "reciprocate" Craig's actions? All I saw was that the officer moved his foot within his own stall. He didn't put his foot or his hand or anything else into Craig's stall, or even look into Craig's stall -- until he announced that Craig was under arrest.

The ACLU's whole argument was regarding the disorderly conduct charge. The "interference with privacy" charge, the more serious charge that the prosecutor agreed to drop in exchange for the guilty plea, wasn't even addressed. I'd like to know how the ACLU with its privacy argument would have argued against Craig's guilt on the "interference with privacy" charge -- but we'll never know.

[closeupready]

160. You miss my point. I'm agreeing. This story is not about right to privacy.

It is about how right-wing members of the media hate the ACLU (remember, "Dukakais is a card-carrying member of the ACLU!"?). The fact that the underlying issues generate so much heat and light helps carry the anti-ACLU banner.

[SacredCow]

83. Personally, I think it's a game of "chicken" in a way....

If they uphold the 38-year-old ruling to exonerate Craig (and get him out of trouble), then it opens the door to countless others that were charged with the same crime (some, perhaps, that were even entrapment targeted at gay men). Then, one could argue that if a bathroom stall is considered private, then why not the backseat of a car?

Regardless, I don't see how it would help him. He was charged with soliciting sex- not engaging in sex.

[AtomicKitten]

88. I love it when the ACLU takes these cases. It makes heads explode.

:nuke:

[ProudDad]

110. Damn Right.

There's too much intrusion of the police state in personal behavior within and among consenting adults.

Why the FUCK are our tax dollars still being used for this bullshit!

[Jamastiene]

117. I would hope anything you do in bathroom stalls is private and

remains that way. I certainly don't want anyone watching me in bathroom stalls. :tinfoilhat: :scared: :hide:

[pnwmom]

129. Do you want anyone to slide their feet and hands into your stall? n/t

[Jamastiene]

230. That depends on if she's got sexy feet and hands. n/t

:evilgrin:

[Fire Walk With Me]

119. I'm a guy, but I still get arrested when I go into the ladies' room looking for sex.

I guess that this law is only for SOME people :shrug:

[Dr. Strange]

142. I think the idea is...

if you can make it to the stall and close the door before anyone notices, then you have the protection of privacy.

[Fire Walk With Me]

149. I'm going to have to improve both my sprinting and my pick-up lines in a major way.

Sigh.

[defendandprotect]

120. Well, I agree with the spirit of the ACLU thinking . . . however . ..

in this case the guy in the John next door had his privacy intruded upon by Larry Craig ---

It should still be a two-man disagreement --- not something involving government unless there is force.

[lateo]

141. A public restroom is not private.

I don't really see why the ACLU is wasting money on this.

[mondo joe]

156. I don't know why they're doing it either - but I'm glad that Craig is in the news again

and that the defense of him is that sex in public bathrooms is protected.

[iamthebandfanman]

144. i think using the toilet in restrooms is private !

either way i dunno how this can work... since he put parts of his body into ANOTHER stall... i mean thats invading someones else privacy isnt it ?

[Fire Walk With Me]

276. I'll tell ya, nothing is sexier to me than being hit on while I'm using the toilet.

:sarcasm:

[focusfan]

146. they sure didn't have a bit trouble arresting George Michael

when he was doing his sexual bussiness in the bathroom

[Buzz Clik]

158. When I saw this last night, I thought we were being suckered.

Sex in a public bathroom is private? The logic is lost on me.

[Beelzebud]

163. Fight for your right to have anonymous sex in public bathroom stalls!

GO ACLU!

[BoneDaddy]

200. Crap

I don't want to bring my 4 year old child into a public restroom to hear people screwing in the stall. Get a freaking room, a tent, a bush. I don't care.

In the same respect, stings should not entrap people if they do decide to do so. I don't think it should be illegal, I just think it shows little to no respect to those of us who would prefer to use the bathroom to go to the bathroom.

[Zynx]

220. This is what pisses me off about the ACLU sometimes.

They miss the big picture to defend this crap.

[katty]

231. So is there a limit as to how many people can have sex at

one time in a PUBLIC bathroom? - while other people who actually HAVE to use the restroom for its intended purpose are supposed to WAIT untile the private/public sex is over? Personally, I feel my rights would be infringed upon if I have to wait for a bathroom stall while the occupants are only having (private) sex...it's just not fair. Or, no pun....is this entirely open-ended....

[Sparkly]

255. I thought the issue was reasonable expectation of privacy when defecating...

... and that peering through the crack into the stall, putting hands and feet into the personal space etc., was the violation.

:shrug:

[Desertrose]

257. A public restroom is just that- public.

What about the rights of people using a bathroom for its actual intended purpose? I think one should have a reasonable expectation of privacy for that, but for sex...that is not the purpose of a public restroom.

I think there may be better things to argue honestly.

[katty]

259. yes, agree, I mean that is what I expect...intended use

[Warren Stupidity]

268. Odd, some of the same folks insisting that Craig

was invading privacy are now arguing that there is no privacy to invade.

[mondo joe]

269. That's because the privacy one can reasonably expect is not absolute.

Restrooms stalls are designed to afford limited privacy - enough to defecate or urinate.

They are not designed to be little sex cottages. For one thing, there are generally exposed areas that make some things public. And they are in no way acoustically private.

[Wizard777]

284. SCOTUS agrees that the attempt to conceal your activities doesn't have to be absolute.

The fact that you have drawn your blinds is enough to protect your privacy. If a cop peers through a crack in the blind and sees you smoking pot. He can't arrest because he invaded your privacy in forming his probable cause.

[mondo joe]

285. The privacy of your own home is rather different than what one can reasonably expect

in a public restroom.

And in your scenario you are dealing with the right to privacy from the state. In the case of bathroom sex we are talking about private citizens being subjected to others having sex behind a thin partition.

But if you think the court will find a Constitutional right to have sex in public restrooms...well... let's check back in with each other a year from now and see.

[DaveJ]

280. Exactly my point from the very beginning

nt

[DaveJ]

282. What I think guys don't understand is...

We are not talking about flaming homosexuals accosting unwilling straight men. We are talking about situations where two consulting gay men can meet without fear of punishment. It is debatable whether this involved the police officer pretending to be a willing participant, but it seem very coincidental to me that Craig picked him out among every other occupant, and very unlikely the officer did nothing suggestive. I would agree that sex in the bathrooms should be punished, but not simply meeting.

[Political Heretic]

287. Thanks for some injection of sanity.