It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ACLU argues in Craig case that airport restroom sex is private

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:21 PM

ACLU argues in Craig case that airport restroom sex is private

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

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

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

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:21 PM
Well, just what was he inviting him to do, pass the sports page?

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Bah-dump-bum!

So, according to the ACLU, and apparently the MSC as well, sex in public restroom stalls is private. Doesn't that just beat all?

How would you like to walk into a public restroom with your child and hear a bunch of moaning and slurping coming from one of the stalls? Would you like to try and explain that to your child? I don't think so!

To me, the issue isn't that Mr. Craig wanted to have gay sex, or whatever he was up to. It is the hypocrisy of the man being married and all, and being against gay rights. Then he apparently solicits an undercover officer in a public restroom, pleads guilty to disorderly conduct, but claims it is all a big misunderstanding. Now the ACLU wants to claim he wasn't really doing anything wrong, certainly nothing illegal, to begin with. Oh, please!
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:35 PM
Ya i dont really understand how having sex in a public place can constitue a private act. Your in public! if you dont want people seeing your dirty laundry, dont leave it out in public!

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:00 PM
Some of the things the ACLU chooses to defend just boggle the imagination. It makes me wonder who is running the operation, Crusty the Clown?

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:05 PM
Be careful where you get your news.

The ACLU is not arguing that sex in bathroom stalls is "private" - their argument is that A) the sting operation that caught him was unconstitutional and B) while it is illegal to have sex in a public place, it's not illegal to try and pick someone up in one.

Here is a better article: ACLU backs Larry Craig

Key points:

"We believe the sting operation used to apprehend Mr. Craig was unconstitutional. The statute the government is relying upon makes it a crime to use certain offensive words," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the ACLU.

But the ACLU says it doesn't matter whether he solicited sex because that's not a crime.

"It is a crime to have sex in public. It is not a crime to propose or solicit sex in public, whether it's in a bar or in a bathroom," Romero said.

The ACLU accepts unpopular cases precisely because that is where the government is most likely to try to get away with subverting the Constitution: when they think they can count on popular support.

The ACLU's position reflects that of the US Constitution, that everyone has precisely the same legal rights, no matter who they are or what they're accused of.

[edit on 1/16/08 by xmotex]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:11 PM
Ah. Thanks for the clarification, and the amonition. Points well taken.

I still think it is ludicrous the man pled guilty to disorderly conduct and is trying to weasel his way out of it. If it was you or me in his position, we would have been denied appeal and laughed out of court. Not to mention the vaunted ACLU would never have even taken a sniff at the case.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Icarus Rising]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:40 PM
NP, hey we're here to spread knowledge & deny ignorance, right?

And I agree, Craig is a weasel.

Not to mention, trying to hook up in public bathrooms is, at the very least, in extremely poor taste

But I like the ACLU.
I am a member, and I see them misrepresented a lot.
(I'm in the same boat with the NRA, but that's for another thread.)

The ACLU tends to get a lot of negative publicity when they support the rights of scumbags, and people misinterpret it and think they're just a bunch of people out to support scumbags

But the point is that everyone, even scumbags, has the same legal rights.

And by the way, I think you'd be surprised how many "nobodies" they actually help.

[edit on 1/16/08 by xmotex]

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:57 PM
Thank God for the ACLU!! Many people do not comprehend the complexity of the law and how easily the cops can make rights disappear by simply ignoring them...until someone points out the facts.

I agree with the ACLU on this one. I must put my personal disgust with the entire arena where this happens away and realize that it is the fine points of the law that matter, for us all.

Making signs or using words or indicating that someone wants some activity is not and should not be a crime. It should be and IS a crime to engage in sexual acts in public places, and rightfully so. I have three kids too I want protected. But the mere adult to adult ' signaling ' is not a crime and is not a metter for the police. If the person does not respond, then it is over and no harm done. Most straight people would probably not even know that they had been solicited unless the person in the next stall became aggressive.

But in this case, one could assume that the guy was seeking a contact for later, and not necessarily seeking immediate gratification right there. The law has to protect us all from the gray areas and situations where misinperpretations could mean an arrest. craig is scum, a liar and hippocrite, but he is not a criminal for what he did in that bathroom.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:39 PM
Out of curiosity, would talking with a prostitute for the means of soliciting sex be a crime? Im just not sure of where the line is drawn.

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 06:23 PM
Wow. Great, thought provoking responses from members better informed on these issues than I. I still trip on some of the stuff the ACLU gets behind, but I have to admit, we can't have too many champions of personal liberty and the inalienable rights of the people these days.

On the topic of solicitation, if I am not mistaken, it becomes a crime when the parties agree on a price and money is exchanged. No sexual act need have taken place at that point for an arrest to be made.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:45 AM
If sex in a public restroom "stall" is not private, then dropping a wide load in one is also not private. Lets just take the doors off the stalls. Let it all hang out.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:58 AM
As a frequent traveler I have seen used condoms floating in airport toilets on a few occasions, thus showing that sex acts are performed in the toilets and they are not just used as pick up areas.
For heavens sake, why can't these people go to a bar or club if they want to pick someone up and go have sex in a private place, away from the public.
Is it just a gay thing? Picking people up in public toilets and performing sex acts in these places? Get a freakin room!

Not that Mr. Craig would ever take a pick-up home or be seen trying to pick someone up in a bar or club. There's his reputation as an upstanding politician to protect so he's just keeping it in the toilet where he and his kind belong

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Britguy
Is it just a gay thing? Picking people up in public toilets and performing sex acts in these places? Get a freakin room!

Well technically no, its not just a gay thing.
There are these things called glory holes, apparently prostitutes of both sexes work in restrooms performing services through the hole.

Straight people have sex in restrooms too.
You know a quickie, before the movie starts or something as spontaneous.
There's even commercials showing it on TV for some singles line or something,
or is it aftershave?

But yeah, picking people up in restrooms?
I don't want to touch anything in a restroom, let alone a strangers genitals.
But people, everywhere, are really weird.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:57 AM
From what I've seen over the years I'd have to say that it sure does seem like a predominantly gay pastime. I've also seen plenty of holes in the panels between stalls.

I guess what it really comes down to is simple decency, something that seems to be sadly lacking these days

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:20 AM
Wow noone must remember "Porkies" From the 70's ..

A gay thing ? Sex is sex . Everyone does it . We do it anyplace we can anytime we can . Its human nature.

I would have to say that straight people commit acts of public ludeness far more often than gay people . Heck i can could 3-4 times i have seen people nipping off for a quickie in public. (Not friends, god that # would be insane)

I jsut dont think its noticed as much if its a straight couple .
I hardly ever see a straight couple being ridiculed for PDA (Public display of a affection?)
But man get a gay couple in a mall holding hands and you have the makings for a hate crime. ..

Anyway my point is his sexual preference as much as it may bother people really has nothing to do with the facts . Which unless i misread or have been mis-informed really dont say much .

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:04 AM
From what I've read, most of the men that frequent places like public bathrooms for sex do not consider themselves "gay."

They're mostly (like Mr Craig) men that live their lives as "straight" and think of themselves that way, even though they have furtive anonymous sex with other men. Many of them are married, with families.

The human talent for self-deception is an awesome thing to behold sometimes

[edit on 1/17/08 by xmotex]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 01:51 PM
I'm not sure that Craig actually broke a law with his wandering feet or his arcane hand signals, but the ACLUs assertion that sex in public restrooms is legal is preposterous.

Well, it's preposterous to me, but apparently it wasn't preposterous to the Minnesota Supreme Court 38 years ago.

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.

It is my opinion that public restrooms are meant for tending to one's matters of waste excretion and other matters of personal hygiene. A person who occupies a stall might have an expectation of privacy, but should that include privacy to do anything.

Would it be acceptable for people to do drugs, sell drugs, or make book in bathroom stalls under this expectation of privacy?

Bathroom stalls are provided so as to allow one to excrete with a modicum of privacy.

If we are to allow sex in public restrooms, then we need to either redesign stalls or to provide rooms with stalls for those who can't travel across the country using public facilities without the need satisfy sexual urges with strangers en route.

[edit on 2008/1/17 by GradyPhilpott]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:12 PM
Grady, did you read the thread?!?

It is a crime to have sex in public. - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero

Please read my first post in this thread.

They're not arguing that it's legal to have sex in a public bathroom.

The case is being misrepresented to increase it's shock value, no doubt to sell newspapers and get bigger TV ratings...

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 03:50 PM
Actually, when I clicked your link, it was dead, as is the OP's link, so I went looking for my own link.

If you read my link, you will find that my post is germane to the informatioon to be found there.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:46 PM
ACLU, once again proving they are evil liberals...

I love how the GOP hates the ACLU, calls them liberal, because they defend the constitution no matter how dirty and disgusting the person. You know, like Rush Limbaugh who they defended, and now Larry Craig, and earlier the churches who were going to be closed down, or that girl who wanted to sing Amazing Grace at a school talent show but was denied as it is a religious song, and then the ACLU stepped in and defended her freedom of speech. But yeah, evil liberals, standing up for the constitution...

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in