ACLU argues in Craig case that airport restroom sex is private, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 16-1-2008 @ 02:21 PM by Icarus Rising

ACLU argues in Craig case that airport restroom sex is private


www.magicvalley.com
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)


reply posted on 16-1-2008 @ 03:05 PM by xmotex
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:
ABC.com: 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]


reply posted on 17-1-2008 @ 01:51 PM by GradyPhilpott
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.

www.examiner.com...


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]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^