ACLU Says Sex in Public Bathrooms is Private

[TheWho]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080116...l-1be00ca.html

ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private

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

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

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."

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

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover 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 argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.

"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

[Kuma]

ACLU?

SRSLY?

Shouldn't he be booted out of the republican party just for that?

[Blisters]

Way to doctor the title of the article!

Actual title: ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private
McLovin's doctored title: ACLU Says Sex in Public Bathrooms is Private

Of course, by lying as you have, you are totally misrepresenting the ACLU's legal brief.

You're like a little theeprof!

[TheWho]

Originally Posted by Blisters

Way to doctor the title of the article!

Actual title: ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private
McLovin's doctored title: ACLU Says Sex in Public Bathrooms is Private

Of course, by lying as you have, you are totally misrepresenting the ACLU's legal brief.

You're like a little theeprof!

........................................keep trying

[guy]

Are you seriously suggesting that a "public restroom" is the same thing as a "Restroom Stall"? I'm guessing it wasn't your intention to mislead, but can't you at least accept that by interjecting bias in your title, you changed the meaning; at least a little bit?

Seriously though, don't you think this whole thing is getting a lot more attention then it deserves? When was the last time you had to deal with this issue? I haven't ever seen it: I'm thinking it happens very, very infrequently.

Aren't there much, much bigger problems we should be concerned with?

And the ACLU does have a valid point:

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

You really can't have it both ways. Either there is an expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall or there isn't one.

[TheWho]

Originally Posted by guy

Are you seriously suggesting that a "public restroom" is the same thing as a "Restroom Stall"? I'm guessing it wasn't your intention to mislead, but can't you at least accept that by interjecting bias in your title, you changed the meaning; at least a little bit?

Restroom Stall, Public Bathroom, is it that big of a difference to cry about?

Seriously though, don't you think this whole thing is getting a lot more attention then it deserves? When was the last time you had to deal with this issue? I haven't ever seen it: I'm thinking it happens very, very infrequently.

Just found it funny they basiscally supported public bathroom sex.

Aren't there much, much bigger problems we should be concerned with?

Absoultely. We have the lynch thread a few discussions down.

[Blisters]

Originally Posted by Turbo91Bird

Just found it funny they basiscally supported public bathroom sex.

You clearly have no grasp of the legal issues, and if you did, you would still try to misrepresent it because, to you, this story is little more than fodder for your juvenile mentality.

Beavis McLovin: "Heh. They said bathroom sex. Heh heh."

[TheWho]

Originally Posted by Blisters

You clearly have no grasp of the legal issues, and if you did, you would still try to misrepresent it because, to you, this story is little more than fodder for your juvenile mentality.

Beavis McLovin: "Heh. They said bathroom sex. Heh heh."

Enlighten me oh great one.

Last time I checked, Public bathrooms were just that...public. So how can you say "people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy". I mean come on...this is ridiculous. If the ACLU wants to defend Sen. Craig, should argue that returning a solicitation from a person for sex has an expectation of privacy.
heh heh, sex, heh heh

[TheWho]

edit: double post.

[Blisters]

Suppose someone was pulled over by the police, and the cops executed an unconstitutional search of the car without a warrant or permission.

Suppose the cops found a dime bag of marijuana.

Suppose the defendant hired a lawyer, who tried to defend his client on the grounds that the search was unconstitutional and the evidence should be thrown out.

Would it be fair to accuse the defense lawyer of "basically supporting drug use"?

No, of course it would not.

There are at least two legal avenues being pursued by the ACLU on behalf of Craig: The first is a free speech defense; they can't arrest him for his speech, even if the speech is offensive to other people. The second is privacy based on existing Minnesota law, as guy pointed out.

In America, criminal defendants are entitled to a legal defense, and the legal defense would be stupid and idiotic to not defend Craig on the basis of exist legal precedent. As guy said, you can't have it both ways: If the law says that you have a right to non-interference while inside a bathroom stall, then Craig is entitled to that right just as surely as you are.

Do I agree with the ACLU's legal reasoning? I'm not sure. I'm not a lawyer and don't consider myself qualified to offer an opinion.

But it is simply a distortion to say that the ACLU supports bathroom sex.

And it's dishonest to change the title of the article in the way you did. I believe you changed the title because you were afraid it wouldn't be offensive enough in the original form. You could make it seem more ridiculous by changing it from "Sex in Restroom Stalls" to "Sex in Public Bathrooms."

One last point: The media headlines are also inaccurate. If you read the actual legal brief, they are not saying "sex in bathroom stalls is private." They are saying that people inside public bathroom stalls have an expectation of privacy.

Next time you sit down in a stall somewhere, I am sure you have an expectation of privacy, and the good news for you is that the law agrees.

Well, guess what? The law protects Craig as much as it protects you.