ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

[Dancing David]

The ACLU is participating in a protest of the sting operation the the Minneapolis bathroom that netted Sen. Craig.

They claim such stings are illegal.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/31843prs20070917.html

[ponderingturtle]

Wow, they think people need a sign to know that having sex in a public bathroom is not appropriate?

[jimlintott]

Wow, they think people need a sign to know that having sex in a public bathroom is not appropriate?

No. They are saying that posting a sign and having a uniformed officer patrol occasionally is a more effective deterrent than undercover stings that do nothing more than pad an officer's collar count.

Unfortunately, if they can prevent the crime they can't make any arrests. Many people seem to associate more arrests with being tough on crime. I see more arrests as a failure to prevent crime.

To my Canadian eyes, law enforcement in the U.S. appears to be an industry rather than a public service. Maybe that's not accurate but it's the way I see it.

[ponderingturtle]

No. They are saying that posting a sign and having a uniformed officer patrol occasionally is a more effective deterrent than undercover stings that do nothing more than pad an officer's collar count.

Unfortunately, if they can prevent the crime they can't make any arrests. Many people seem to associate more arrests with being tough on crime. I see more arrests as a failure to prevent crime.

To my Canadian eyes, law enforcement in the U.S. appears to be an industry rather than a public service. Maybe that's not accurate but it's the way I see it.

The other thing is that any arrests made of individuals in these acts would be much much more severe than the sting operation. They would likely be labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

[tsg]

Wow, they think people need a sign to know that having sex in a public bathroom is not appropriate?

As usual, the devil is in the details. Craig wasn't arrested for having sex in public, he was arrested for soliciting sex in public. According the ACLU, "the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public." That is to say, if Craig's intent was to go someplace private, then he wasn't breaking the law. Otherwise, half the people in a bar are violating the law. The ACLU's claim is that this sting wasn't "carefully crafted" enough to avoid capturing people who were "engaging in constitutionally protected speech".

And (while the first quote doesn't make it clear, there is a clarification later on in the story) the suggestion was to place a sign in the restroom indicating it was being monitored and to have a uniformed officer patrol it periodically.

"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig’s arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible..." In other words, the law is not about punishing people in and of itself. It is about discouraging undesirable behavior and punishing violators is a means to that end. While not entrapment, it is the same principle: preventing the behavior is much more preferable to catching those who would engage in it otherwise.

[tsg]

To my Canadian eyes, law enforcement in the U.S. appears to be an industry rather than a public service. Maybe that's not accurate but it's the way I see it.

To my American eyes as well.

I remember watching an episode of "Cops" (my wife watches it, I have little choice) where the police department in question conducted a "sting" to nab bicycle thieves. It consisted of leaving a very expensive ($2000, if I remember correctly) bicycle unlocked and unattended in a dark alley in a bad area of town and arresting anyone who came out with it. While there may be a legal argument against it being entrapment (I am not a lawyer), it still has the same bad taste. I mean, yes, these people shouldn't be taking a bike that doesn't belong to them, but how many of them only did it because of how easy it was and how valuable the bike was? This was a section of town where the person probably could have fed his family for a month if he got a tenth of what the bike was worth. How is this different from leaving a bag of cash on the ground and arresting anyone who picks it up? Should the police be encouraging crime for the sake of making the arrest?

And then I have to wonder how many real bike thieves passed it up thinking "this has got to be a set-up." How many people are even going to ride a $2000 bike to that area of town, let alone leave it unlocked?

All I can think of is Hazzard County Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane hiding the stop sign behind a tree so he could write those Duke boys a ticket.

[Dancing David]

No. They are saying that posting a sign and having a uniformed officer patrol occasionally is a more effective deterrent than undercover stings that do nothing more than pad an officer's collar count.

Unfortunately, if they can prevent the crime they can't make any arrests. Many people seem to associate more arrests with being tough on crime. I see more arrests as a failure to prevent crime.

To my Canadian eyes, law enforcement in the U.S. appears to be an industry rather than a public service. Maybe that's not accurate but it's the way I see it.

That depends most cops are involved in street patrols most of the time, answering calls and the like.

Now the prisons are an industry. The product, institutionalized people who can't function in society.

[WildCat]

The ACLU's claim is that this sting wasn't "carefully crafted" enough to avoid capturing people who were "engaging in constitutionally protected speech".
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the ACLU here. If I'm doing my business in a closed bathroom stall, someone does not have the right to start tapping my feet with his feet in the hopes I'll have sex with him, even if the sex in a hotel room and not in public.

Your freedom to tap your foot ends when it comes in contact with my foot.

[tsg]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with the ACLU here. If I'm doing my business in a closed bathroom stall, someone does not have the right to start tapping my feet with his feet in the hopes I'll have sex with him, even if the sex in a hotel room and not in public.

Your freedom to tap your foot ends when it comes in contact with my foot.

Well, if I remember the original story correctly, contact isn't part of the code. As far as I know it's just tapping your feet on the floor that is the signal. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a surreptitious signal that is going to make those who aren't in on it think you're a pervert. It would be like the JREF secret member greeting being "****?"

[WildCat]

Well, if I remember the original story correctly, contact isn't part of the code.
But Craig made contact, he claims it was incidental due to his "wide stance".

[tsg]

But Craig made contact, he claims it was incidental due to his "wide stance".

That may be. As far as I know, though, it isn't standard.

Keep in mind that very often someone who is actually guilty of committing the crime he is accused of is let go if the police violated his rights in the arrest or obtaining of evidence. "Fruit of the poisoned tree" I think it's called in legal parlance.

The ACLU's position is that the method use to catch him is unconstitutional which makes his arrest a violation of his rights. Whether he is actually guilty or not doesn't matter.

[WildCat]

The ACLU's position is that the method use to catch him is unconstitutional which makes his arrest a violation of his rights.
If he hadn't made contact with the cop I would agree.

[tsg]

If he hadn't made contact with the cop I would agree.

Except that the cop was only in there for the purpose of, what the ACLU calls, an unconstitutional sting operation. Had it been a private citizen, or even an off-duty cop, it would be a different kettle of fish. But that isn't the case here. The police don't get to violate the rights of citizens even if it does result in the arrest of an actual criminal.

[Number Six]

Who is in charge of the ACLU? Can't they think of something better to do than this? I wonder if they're not just taking this on because they're often accused of being too left and so they're helping out a guy on the right to balance things out.

Do you really need to put up a sign? And how exactly is a cop patrolling restrooms going to help? Is the cop going to stay in the bathroom for 20 minutes and look under the stalls to see if anyone is tapping their shoes? How many cops is this going to take? There are about a million public restrooms. Frankly the ACLU recommendation sounds ridiculous to me and I sometime wonder who is making the decisions over there.

I would guess that the single most effective thing done lately to prevent bad behavior in public restrooms is this whole Senator Craig incident and the publicity around it. And I'm not familiar with the ethos in the gay community but if this behavior isn't very strongly condemned there then they deserve some of the grief that people give them.

If you want to start a private club where people sign up and then are anonymously assigned a sex partner then go ahead and do it, but people using the facilities in public restrooms shouldn't be subjected to that and I have no problem with anyone doing so getting arrested. In fact, from what I read this guy Craig got off with almost no punishment (other than the public embarrassment I mean...but no legal punishment).

The general problem...and forgive my raving but I've gotten riled up...but the general problem is people acting like asses (we'll see if that gets asterisked out). Just don't be an ass, with respect to this or a hundred other issues, and the world will be a better place. Use your common sense before acting.

[tsg]

Who is in charge of the ACLU? Can't they think of something better to do than this? I wonder if they're not just taking this on because they're often accused of being too left and so they're helping out a guy on the right to balance things out.

Do you really need to put up a sign? And how exactly is a cop patrolling restrooms going to help? Is the cop going to stay in the bathroom for 20 minutes and look under the stalls to see if anyone is tapping their shoes? How many cops is this going to take? There are about a million public restrooms. Frankly the ACLU recommendation sounds ridiculous to me and I sometime wonder who is making the decisions over there.

I would guess that the single most effective thing done lately to prevent bad behavior in public restrooms is this whole Senator Craig incident and the publicity around it. And I'm not familiar with the ethos in the gay community but if this behavior isn't very strongly condemned there then they deserve some of the grief that people give them.

If you want to start a private club where people sign up and then are anonymously assigned a sex partner then go ahead and do it, but people using the facilities in public restrooms shouldn't be subjected to that and I have no problem with anyone doing so getting arrested. In fact, from what I read this guy Craig got off with almost no punishment (other than the public embarrassment I mean...but no legal punishment).

The general problem...and forgive my raving but I've gotten riled up...but the general problem is people acting like asses (we'll see if that gets asterisked out). Just don't be an ass, with respect to this or a hundred other issues, and the world will be a better place. Use your common sense before acting.

You might actually want to read the article before you go off, forgive the pun, half-cocked.

[WildCat]

Except that the cop was only in there for the purpose of, what the ACLU calls, an unconstitutional sting operation.
I think the ACLU is way off on this one. I hate using public bathrooms as it is (and it will take a real emergency to get me to squat in one), having to deal with come-ons from creeps tapping my feet should not be part of the equation.

[tsg]

I think the ACLU is way off on this one. I hate using public bathrooms as it is (and it will take a real emergency to get me to squat in one), having to deal with come-ons from creeps tapping my feet should not be part of the equation.

Your aversions to public restrooms notwithstanding, I'm not saying that the ACLU is necessarily correct, but even if they are it doesn't necessarily defend Craig's behavior. All they are saying is that the manner in which he was caught is unconstitutional. It means the police got sloppy. It doesn't mean Craig did nothing wrong.

I'm sure if you were in that restroom and got arrested for tapping your feet, completely unaware of the significance of the action, you would be singing a different tune.

[Bikewer]

Quite aside from the legality/illegality of the "operation", I wonder what Craig makes of all this?
Seems to me the last thing this vocally anti-homosexual "family values" senator would want is the ACLU jumping onto his right to solicit homosexual encounters in a men's room......
I wonder if some of the ACLU attorneys are having a bit of a chuckle...

[ponderingturtle]

Well, if I remember the original story correctly, contact isn't part of the code. As far as I know it's just tapping your feet on the floor that is the signal. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a surreptitious signal that is going to make those who aren't in on it think you're a pervert. It would be like the JREF secret member greeting being "******?"

From the things earlier the contact is important as it shows that they are not just tapping their foot listening to their MP3 Player.

[timhau]

Quite aside from the legality/illegality of the "operation", I wonder what Craig makes of all this?
Seems to me the last thing this vocally anti-homosexual "family values" senator would want is the ACLU jumping onto his right to solicit homosexual encounters in a men's room......
I wonder if some of the ACLU attorneys are having a bit of a chuckle...

My thoughts exactly. I also wonder what Craig would have said a year ago about policing public areas that are supposed to be gay quickie hot-spots...

[tsg]

Quite aside from the legality/illegality of the "operation", I wonder what Craig makes of all this?
Seems to me the last thing this vocally anti-homosexual "family values" senator would want is the ACLU jumping onto his right to solicit homosexual encounters in a men's room......
I wonder if some of the ACLU attorneys are having a bit of a chuckle...

Public opinion of him will likely be that he is the closet homosexual that got off of public sex solicitation charges on a technicality. I'm having a bit of a chuckle myself.

[tsg]

My thoughts exactly. I also wonder what Craig would have said a year ago about policing public areas that are supposed to be gay quickie hot-spots...

My guess is he would have been for it, and made a note of which areas were being policed.

[Bob Klase]

Keep in mind that very often someone who is actually guilty of committing the crime he is accused of is let go if the police violated his rights in the arrest or obtaining of evidence. "Fruit of the poisoned tree" I think it's called in legal parlance.

No. 'Fruit of the poisoned tree' is when they get information through unconstitutional means and as a result of that information they find other evidence. For example, you killed someone and they get an illegal confession. During the confession you tell them where the body is. The confession is a violation of your rights but it's not 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'. The body is 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=795

[TX50]

[...]
The general problem...and forgive my raving but I've gotten riled up...but the general problem is people acting like asses (we'll see if that gets asterisked out). Just don't be an ass, with respect to this or a hundred other issues, and the world will be a better place. Use your common sense before acting.

I often wish that "Culpable Stupidity" was in the statute book.

[tsg]

No. 'Fruit of the poisoned tree' is when they get information through unconstitutional means and as a result of that information they find other evidence. For example, you killed someone and they get an illegal confession. During the confession you tell them where the body is. The confession is a violation of your rights but it's not 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'. The body is 'Fruit of the poisoned tree'.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=795

I stand corrected.

[Hardenbergh]

I think they should monitor how many people wash their hands before they leave the restroom. I was listening to a radio talk show the other day and someone said that they couldn't believe the number of men in three-piece suits that exited the restroom without washing their hands. He added, "I wonder how many hands they shake during the day?"

Remember this thread?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45212

[Vic Vega]

Seems to me the last thing this vocally anti-homosexual "family values" senator would want is the ACLU jumping onto his right to solicit homosexual encounters in a men's room......

People hate the ACLU until it's their constitutional rights that are being violated. Then, strangely enough, their attitude changes.

I don't always like what the ACLU does, but I'm sure glad they are around to do it because I or someone I know might need them one day.

[Number Six]

You might actually want to read the article before you go off, forgive the pun, half-cocked.

I skimmed the article before posting and after reading your post I've read it completely and I don't have anything I want to retract. The ACLU is out of line on this one IMO. I don't know if it's "unconstitutional" or not (although I know that just because the ACLU says it is doesn't necessarily mean it is), but if it is unconstituional then IMO the constitution should be interpreted differently. The point of a stall is to have privacy. People shouldn't be able to intrude on that for offers of sex or whatever.

And Craig got arrested for a lot more than just tapping his foot. There is no way you can have such a wide stance as to hit into the foot of the guy next to you unless you try. And he didn't even get arrested for that either. He went further and gave a hand signal underneath the stall. When is the last time you were in a public restroom stall and put anything far enough under the divider to the right of you for the person next to you see it? This guy went to the trouble of putting his left hand all the way over under the stall divider to the right of him because that is the unmistakeable signal that is used, but unmistakeable also means you don't do it by accident. BTW, all this is assuming the cop isn't lying of course.

[Number Six]

People hate the ACLU until it's their constitutional rights that are being violated. Then, strangely enough, their attitude changes.

I don't always like what the ACLU does, but I'm sure glad they are around to do it because I or someone I know might need them one day.

Generally I agree with you but that doesn't mean anything and everything they do is okay. When they defend a Nazi's right to free speech then even though Nazis are annyong it's easy to see the analogy of "You have free speech so they should have free speech too."

But I don't see the analogy to the restroom thing. You go into a public restroom stall to do something in private and you shouldn't be harrassed there and I just don't think anyone that tries to pick up someone for sex in such a venue is having their rights denied if the person they try to pick up is an undercover cop. What is the analogy to other behavior there?

If you want to get into technichalities then you can have right "violations" in all kinds of things. You have to be practical because we're living in the real world.

[tsg]

I skimmed the article before posting and after reading your post I've read it completely and I don't have anything I want to retract. The ACLU is out of line on this one IMO. I don't know if it's "unconstitutional" or not (although I know that just because the ACLU says it is doesn't necessarily mean it is),

Then you don't know if they are out of line since their claim is entirely about the constitutionality of the sting operation. And since the very beginning I have not claimed the ACLU is absolutely right. I am only clarifying what their argument is. Whether they are right or not is a matter for the courts.

but if it is unconstituional then IMO the constitution should be interpreted differently. The point of a stall is to have privacy. People shouldn't be able to intrude on that for offers of sex or whatever.

The argument is not about whether or not you should be able to expect any privacy in a public restroom, it is about whether or not the police sting operation violated people's rights. Craig's behavior could have been completely inappropriate and against the law and it still wouldn't make the methods used by the police right.

And Craig got arrested for a lot more than just tapping his foot. There is no way you can have such a wide stance as to hit into the foot of the guy next to you unless you try. And he didn't even get arrested for that either. He went further and gave a hand signal underneath the stall. When is the last time you were in a public restroom stall and put anything far enough under the divider to the right of you for the person next to you see it? This guy went to the trouble of putting his left hand all the way over under the stall divider to the right of him because that is the unmistakeable signal that is used, but unmistakeable also means you don't do it by accident. BTW, all this is assuming the cop isn't lying of course.

As I stated before, the ACLU is not defending Craig's right to behave as he did, they are claiming the methods used to catch him were unconstitutional, specifically, that the sting operation did not discriminate protected speech from unprotected speech.

[Darth Rotor]

. Craig wasn't arrested for having sex in public, he was arrested for soliciting sex in public. According the ACLU, "the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public." That is to say, if Craig's intent was to go someplace private, then he wasn't breaking the law. Otherwise, half the people in a bar are violating the law.
For the sake of clarity, isn't the crime of solicitation the undertaking of a negotiation meant to result in sex for pay? (The distinction seems to be of importance.)

To differentiate:

Event A:

Two men stand washing their hands after using urinals in a public bathroom. For whatever reason, the look at each other, eye contact, instant chemistry, like what they see in one another, and inspired by a bit of spontinaeity, one says to the other "Hey, good looking, lets head over to that little spot, around that corner past the partition near gate 7, and make out?" The other, feeling a similar urge, agrees. No money involved.

No solicitation involved.

Event B

Similar to above, but one says to the other "I've got fifty bucks, would you like to earn it by fellating me around that corner past the partition near gate 7?"

As I understand that, a solicitation has occurred.

Did I miss anything?

If not, how is the ACLU proposing that the solicitation be curtailed without their being a means to detect and apprehend solicitors (OK, lawyers aren't the only people doing it, ba dump, tsh :p ) who solicit in public restrooms?

Their complaint seems to run along the lines of "You need to stop it, just not that way."

DR

[Vic Vega]

Generally I agree with you but that doesn't mean anything and everything they do is okay. When they defend a Nazi's right to free speech then even though Nazis are annyong it's easy to see the analogy of "You have free speech so they should have free speech too."

But I don't see the analogy to the restroom thing. You go into a public restroom stall to do something in private and you shouldn't be harrassed there and I just don't think anyone that tries to pick up someone for sex in such a venue is having their rights denied if the person they try to pick up is an undercover cop. What is the analogy to other behavior there?

If you want to get into technichalities then you can have right "violations" in all kinds of things. You have to be practical because we're living in the real world.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that doesn't mean anything and everything they do is okay". Okay in what sense? They are trying to stand up for the civil rights of people in this country. That's ALWAYS okay whether I personally think what they are fighting for is good or not.

It isn't an analogy to anything. The ACLU is saying that what Craig was accused of was not a violation of the law. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really say whether it was or wasn't, but if they are right, then he should not have a conviction on his record. That's not a technicality. Preventing the police from arresting people for something that is not illegal is about as practical as law gets, I would think.

[tsg]

For the sake of clarity, isn't the crime of solicitation the undertaking of a negotiation meant to result in sex for pay? (The distinction seems to be of importance.)

In this case, solicitation for sex in public (that is, soliciting to engage in public sex as opposed to publicly soliciting for sex) is also a crime, which is the main point of the ACLU's argument. If the sex act is to occur in private, then the solicitation is protected speech. If the sex act is to occur in public then it is not. The sting failed to differentiate between the two. As a means of making their point, public solicitation for sex in private happens all the time in bars between members of the opposite sex.

As far as I know, with few exceptions, solicitation of sex for pay is illegal regardless of where the act is to take place.

To differentiate:

Event A:

Two men stand washing their hands after using urinals in a public bathroom. For whatever reason, the look at each other, eye contact, instant chemistry, like what they see in one another, and inspired by a bit of spontinaeity, one says to the other "Hey, good looking, lets head over to that little spot, around that corner past the partition near gate 7, and make out?" The other, feeling a similar urge, agrees. No money involved.

No solicitation involved.

In this case, it is illegal in that the act is to occur in a public place. Had the first person said, "back to my hotel" rather than "over to that little spot, around the corner past the partition near gate 7", it would not be.

Event B

Similar to above, but one says to the other "I've got fifty bucks, would you like to earn it by fellating me around that corner past the partition near gate 7?"

As I understand that, a solicitation has occurred.

As far as I know, this is illegal regardless of whether it is to be done in public or private. But it is a different law than what Craig was arrested for.

If not, how is the ACLU proposing that the solicitation be curtailed without their being a means to detect and apprehend solicitors (OK, lawyers aren't the only people doing it, ba dump, tsh :p ) who solicit in public restrooms?

Being that the aim of the law is to prevent sex in public places, they recommend putting a sign in the restroom indicating that it is being monitored and send a uniformed officer in every so often.

Their complaint seems to run along the lines of "You need to stop it, just not that way."

That would be a fair way of summarizing it.

[ponderingturtle]

In this case, solicitation for sex in public (that is, soliciting to engage in public sex as opposed to publicly soliciting for sex) is also a crime, which is the main point of the ACLU's argument. If the sex act is to occur in private, then the solicitation is protected speech. If the sex act is to occur in public then it is not. The sting failed to differentiate between the two. As a means of making their point, public solicitation for sex in private happens all the time in bars between members of the opposite sex.

Sure but the claim that it must be communicated beyond any doubt as well, and I am not sure of any forms of communication that can be said to convey intent beyond any doubt.

But it does not seem like it is a reasonable claim that the sex would have been engaged in somewhere else. But with additional evidence I could reconsider this, but the evidence I have seen does not seem to conclude that it is reasonable to think that.

[tsg]

The ACLU is saying that what Craig was accused of was not a violation of the law.

Actually, they aren't. What they are saying is that the operation which ensnared him was unconstitutional.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, they aren't. What they are saying is that the operation which ensnared him was unconstitutional.

Nope, they are saying both. They are claiming it was unconstitutional, and that if he had propositioned someone like that no crime would have been committed as propositioning people for sex is generally legal, and you can't be absolutely certain that they would have had their sex in the bathroom.

[tsg]

Sure but the claim that it must be communicated beyond any doubt as well, and I am not sure of any forms of communication that can be said to convey intent beyond any doubt.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "beyond any reasonable doubt".

But it does not seem like it is a reasonable claim that the sex would have been engaged in somewhere else.

It doesn't have to be. The burden of proof is on the accuser and they have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wouldn't have.

[tsg]

Nope, they are saying both.

No they aren't.

They are claiming it was unconstitutional,

That is true.

and that if he had propositioned someone like that no crime would have been committed as propositioning people for sex is generally legal, and you can't be absolutely certain that they would have had their sex in the bathroom.

First, you only have to be reasonably certain, not absolutely certain. Second, that's not the same as saying that's what he did.

[TragicMonkey]

How ironic, that the Police should be involved in a bathroom Sting. The appropriate song would be "Don't Stand So Close To Me", I guess.

[Number Six]

Let me clarify my position. I don't know whether what the cops did is unconstituional nor if it was illegal. I'm saying that what the cops did should be allowed. If it's technichally illegal what the cops did then okay, it's illegal, and maybe that gets whoever was caught by those means up until now off the hook on a technichality, but then we should change the law or the interpretation of the law so that it's not illegal for the cops to do that in the future.

Or if what the cops did is considered a violation of civil rights then we should change how civil rights are defined in that context because by common sense standards IMO the cops are doing nothing wrong by sitting in a public bathroom stall and waiting for someone to propostion them for sex and then arresting them.

I do find it absurd that the ACLU would spend time on this and say that instead of the cops doing this they should put up signs and have cops just patrol more often. And how many signs are you going to put up in public restrooms? Are you going to put one up warning against any of the thousand potential crimes that could theoretically occur in a public restroom? Are you going to put them in braille too for the blind people? How about putting them in 100 different languages because after all, not everybody speaks English? So let's put up 1000 signs each in 100 different languages (plus braille) in every public restroom in the USA, otherwise we're limiting civil rights.

The whole thing is ridiculous and is a prime reason why some just reflexively go against the ACLU, which ironically ends up inhibiting civil rights.

[ponderingturtle]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Nope, the ACLU did not use the word reasonable.

They seem to also have edited the page so that the page that was up yesterday talking about signs and uniformed patrolmen is no longer there.

So to quote you quoting the ACLU

According the ACLU, "the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public."

Note the lack of the word reasonable.


It doesn't have to be. The burden of proof is on the accuser and they have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wouldn't have.

Again the word reasonable did and does not appear in the web page mentioned. It is also strange that they changed their article so much in 24 hours.

So what is the doubt that Craig claims? His claims certainly do not seem reasonable.

[strathmeyer]

Nope, they are saying both. They are claiming it was unconstitutional, and that if he had propositioned someone like that no crime would have been committed as propositioning people for sex is generally legal, and you can't be absolutely certain that they would have had their sex in the bathroom.

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. If he had said to the officer, "I would like to have sex with you in this bathroom", would you be arguing the same thing? Why should it be different because the method he used was non-verbal?

[ponderingturtle]

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. If he had said to the officer, "I would like to have sex with you in this bathroom", would you be arguing the same thing? Why should it be different because the method he used was non-verbal?

I agree with this, and argued about it quite a bit. The thing is that if you arrest him after the comment, there is always the "I was just screwing around" now we can debate if that is reasonable, but the ACLU omitted the word reasonable in their descriptions. They just said "beyond doubt".

So while it is not reasonable to think that they did not mean that, it is certainly conceivable that they did not mean that.

Nothing I have heard about this case is anything I find particularly troubling. Well other than people buying the Wide Stance theory. If he was really going to the bathroom his pants would not have been around his waist and would seriously limit the width of his stance.

[Darth Rotor]

In this case, solicitation for sex in public (that is, soliciting to engage in public sex as opposed to publicly soliciting for sex) is also a crime, which is the main point of the ACLU's argument.

If the sex act is to occur in private, then the solicitation is protected speech. If the sex act is to occur in public then it is not. The sting failed to differentiate between the two. As a means of making their point, public solicitation for sex in private happens all the time in bars between members of the opposite sex.

As far as I know, with few exceptions, solicitation of sex for pay is illegal regardless of where the act is to take place.

In this case, it is illegal in that the act is to occur in a public place. Had the first person said, "back to my hotel" rather than "over to that little spot, around the corner past the partition near gate 7", it would not be.

As far as I know, this is illegal regardless of whether it is to be done in public or private. But it is a different law than what Craig was arrested for.

Being that the aim of the law is to prevent sex in public places, they recommend putting a sign in the restroom indicating that it is being monitored and send a uniformed officer in every so often.


Thank you for lifting the fog of legal confusion from my eyes. :)

DR

[tsg]

Nope, the ACLU did not use the word reasonable.

They seem to also have edited the page so that the page that was up yesterday talking about signs and uniformed patrolmen is no longer there.

So to quote you quoting the ACLU



Note the lack of the word reasonable.



Again the word reasonable did and does not appear in the web page mentioned. It is also strange that they changed their article so much in 24 hours.

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established as a legal tenet of the US since Coffin v US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States) in 1895 and a concept well before that.

So what is the doubt that Craig claims? His claims certainly do not seem reasonable.

Again, Craig doesn't have to show there is a doubt, the police have to show there isn't.

[tsg]

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. If he had said to the officer, "I would like to have sex with you in this bathroom", would you be arguing the same thing? Why should it be different because the method he used was non-verbal?

If you can show that his non-verbal method of communication leaves no room for reasonable doubt, then have at it. The ACLU is saying they can't.

[tsg]

Let me clarify my position. I don't know whether what the cops did is unconstituional nor if it was illegal. I'm saying that what the cops did should be allowed. If it's technichally illegal what the cops did then okay, it's illegal, and maybe that gets whoever was caught by those means up until now off the hook on a technichality, but then we should change the law or the interpretation of the law so that it's not illegal for the cops to do that in the future.

Or if what the cops did is considered a violation of civil rights then we should change how civil rights are defined in that context because by common sense standards IMO the cops are doing nothing wrong by sitting in a public bathroom stall and waiting for someone to propostion them for sex and then arresting them.

I do find it absurd that the ACLU would spend time on this and say that instead of the cops doing this they should put up signs and have cops just patrol more often. And how many signs are you going to put up in public restrooms? Are you going to put one up warning against any of the thousand potential crimes that could theoretically occur in a public restroom? Are you going to put them in braille too for the blind people? How about putting them in 100 different languages because after all, not everybody speaks English? So let's put up 1000 signs each in 100 different languages (plus braille) in every public restroom in the USA, otherwise we're limiting civil rights.

The whole thing is ridiculous and is a prime reason why some just reflexively go against the ACLU, which ironically ends up inhibiting civil rights.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, as uninformed as it may be. Personally I prefer living in a country where you don't get thrown in jail for asking someone if they want to do something that isn't illegal.

[fishbob]

I'm not saying that the ACLU is necessarily correct, but even if they are it doesn't necessarily defend Craig's behavior. All they are saying is that the manner in which he was caught is unconstitutional. It means the police got sloppy. It doesn't mean Craig did nothing wrong.


From the linked article in the OP:
Senator Craig has not always been a great friend of civil liberties, but you shouldn’t have to endorse the civil liberties of others to keep your own," said Romero.

And this is why I support the ACLU, no matter how distasteful individual cases may be.

And let there be no doubt - Craig is a sorry excuse for a Senator precisely because of his oath to defend the constitution while not being a 'great friend of civil liberties'.

[ponderingturtle]

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established as a legal tenet of the US since Coffin v US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States) in 1895 and a concept well before that.

Sure, but that is not the argument that they made.



Again, Craig doesn't have to show there is a doubt, the police have to show there isn't.

And marksman was quite clear that your own hypothesis is not the doubt you can use in an other thread on this.

[ponderingturtle]

If you can show that his non-verbal method of communication leaves no room for reasonable doubt, then have at it. The ACLU is saying they can't.

Stop putting words in their mouth. Or would you rather show beyond a reasonable doubt that they ment to have reasonable in there but put the first version of the press release together too fast.

Anyone have a link to the orrigional version?

[Michael Redman]

It doesn't make any sense that arrests are the end goal of a sting operation. What value do arrests have? What the police are trying to do is make arrests that they can publicize to put the community on notice that the prohibition on such behavior is being enforced (and boy did they ever succeed in this case). It is a deterrent. You can argue all you want about how effective it is, but the arrests themselves are obviously not the end for which they are working.

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established as a legal tenet of the US since Coffin v US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States) in 1895 and a concept well before that.Oh, I hate this. It isn't "innocent until proven guilty", it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

[tsg]

Sure, but that is not the argument that they made.

How do you figure? They're talking about the bloody Constitution. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the central tenet of our judicial system. It is implied in every single discussion about it. That they didn't specifically state it changes nothing.

And marksman was quite clear that your own hypothesis is not the doubt you can use in an other thread on this.

I haven't read any other thread. You'll have to point it out.

Stop putting words in their mouth. Or would you rather show beyond a reasonable doubt that they ment to have reasonable in there but put the first version of the press release together too fast.

Our legal system is putting words in their mouth. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

[tsg]

Oh, I hate this. It isn't "innocent until proven guilty", it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

I fail to see your point.

[ponderingturtle]

How do you figure? They're talking about the bloody Constitution. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the central tenet of our judicial system. It is implied in every single discussion about it. That they didn't specifically state it changes nothing.


Because that is not what they said. They made no comment at all on what ammount of doubt was needed to make it a free speech issue.


Our legal system is putting words in their mouth. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

No you are. You are trying to make their claim fit your ideas of our legal system.

[tsg]

Because that is not what they said. They made no comment at all on what ammount of doubt was needed to make it a free speech issue.

Because it is well known within our legal system. Do they need to specifically state grass is green?

ETA: It's the ACLU. Do you honestly believe they are demanding proof beyond a level of doubt required by law? If you're only argument is based on an unreasonable interpretation of what they said in a press release, you have no argument.

[Michael Redman]

I fail to see your point.Do you really, or do you just disagree with me? I'm saying there is a difference between being innocent, and being presumed innocent, and that people shouldn't say one when they mean the other.

[tsg]

Do you really, or do you just disagree with me? I'm saying there is a difference between being innocent, and being presumed innocent, and that people shouldn't say one when they mean the other.

I don't see any difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" considering the context in which I was using the phrase was about the burden of proof in a criminal trial, especially since the discussion was focused on "reasonable doubt", and the fact that I specifically said Craig may be 100% guilty.

It seemed to me you were implying I said something I did not, or being needlessly pedantic.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree with them.

As my favorite columnist, Richard Roeper, wrote, "If things happened as the officer described, it definitely sounds as if something funky was going on -- but where's the crime? Is it against the law to play footsie and engage in some type of cryptic hand gesturing? (Maybe it's the peering into the stall. That SHOULD be a crime.)"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/540811,CST-NWS-roep04.article

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with them.

As my favorite columnist, Richard Roeper, wrote, "If things happened as the officer described, it definitely sounds as if something funky was going on -- but where's the crime? Is it against the law to play footsie and engage in some type of cryptic hand gesturing? (Maybe it's the peering into the stall. That SHOULD be a crime.)"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/540811,CST-NWS-roep04.article

So propositioning for illegal sex becomes legal if you do it in an obscure enough fashion? He comunicated, and it seems that it was as clear as saying "I want to suck on your penis"

[tsg]

So propositioning for illegal sex becomes legal if you do it in an obscure enough fashion? He comunicated, and it seems that it was as clear as saying "I want to suck on your penis"

What is, or should be, illegal about wanting to suck on someone's penis?

[JoeEllison]

Didn't the guy plead guilty? Why is there a protest? Because some guy got caught, admitted his guilt, and now wants to get a "do-over" in court? Or because the consequences of his actions have been devastating to him? Maybe, and here's a crazy idea, he should have gone to a bar to pick up guys, or met them on the Internet. Trying to have sex in bathrooms is illegal, and he knew it was illegal, and he attempted to do it anyway.

The ACLU is wrong on this one, as far as I'm concerned. They are demanding an unreasonable burden on the police. Or, should the policeman have to actually engage in the public sex act in order to make the arrest?

[tsg]

The ACLU is wrong on this one, as far as I'm concerned. They are demanding an unreasonable burden on the police. Or, should the policeman have to actually engage in the public sex act in order to make the arrest?

They are only asking that the police be able to show that the act was going to occur in public.

[ponderingturtle]

What is, or should be, illegal about wanting to suck on someone's penis?

Demonstrate that those signals mean that it was intended to happen anywhere other than the bathroom.

[Number Six]

Demonstrate that those signals mean that it was intended to happen anywhere other than the bathroom.

I think you meant "in the bathroom" rather than "anywhere other than the bathroom." But then, demonstrate that saying to someone "Will you have sex with me in this bathroom?" means that it was intended to happen in the bathroom. It is communication. Saying the words states your intent but there are ways of stating intent other than saying words. I don't know what the etiquette for picking up people to have sex in bathrooms is but if the ways it's done is how Craig was doing it then it's equivalent to him simply flat out asking someone.

But even if the intent was to pick someone up and then go elsewhere to have sex I still don't think that should be allowed. I mean, I don't know if that's against the law or not but it should be IMO. I think that someone sitting in a public restroom stall answering nature's call should not have to deal with sexual advances. Call me a prude if you like but I think it's a matter of public decency, especially since there is no shortage of ways and places for people to pick each other up for sex in our society.

If they're allowed to pick each other up for sex there then why should they not be allowed to have sex there? And why should they have to do it in a stall instead of out in the open? There's a line and granted that it may ultimately be subjective but I think people should be allowed to poop in public in peace (a public restroom that is).

[tsg]

Demonstrate that those signals mean that it was intended to happen anywhere other than the bathroom.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

[tsg]

But even if the intent was to pick someone up and then go elsewhere to have sex I still don't think that should be allowed. I mean, I don't know if that's against the law or not but it should be IMO.

So you've said. Fortunately you don't get to make those laws.

[Number Six]

So you've said. Fortunately you don't get to make those laws.

Not directly but I do get as much input as the average citizen in terms of voting for lawmakers or whatever. I suspect that the more input the public in general has on this the more likely that the laws will become more strict because most people don't want public restrooms used as places where people solicit sex.

[JoeEllison]

They are only asking that the police be able to show that the act was going to occur in public.

And how should they do that?

[tsg]

Not directly but I do get as much input as the average citizen in terms of voting for lawmakers or whatever. I suspect that the more input the public in general has on this the more likely that the laws will become more strict because most people don't want public restrooms used as places where people solicit sex.

Until it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU claims it does.

Because something makes you uncomfortable is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.

[tsg]

And how should they do that?

Offhand, I don't know. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable request.

[JoeEllison]

Offhand, I don't know. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable request.

I'm not sure that it is unreasonable to assume that someone soliciting sex in a public restroom is planning on having the sex right there. It certainly doesn't seem like the hand under the stall is a signal for "would you like to have dinner a week from Friday?"

[Number Six]

Until it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU claims it does.

Because something makes you uncomfortable is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.

The First Amendment is interpreted by humans, who in turn are affected and appointed by other humans.

It's true that just because something makes me uncomfortable isn't sufficient reason to make it illegal but OTOH the sum total of what people think should be legal and illegal often determines what is ultimately legal and illegal.

[Invidious]

Offhand, I don't know. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable request.
If a majority of people who use this code subsequently engage in public sex, then it is reasonable to assume Craig would have as well. All the prosecutor has to prove is that in the majority of cases this code leads to public sex. They will probably do so using the arresting officer or some other police official possessing a number of years of proven experience in the area, along with accompanying documentation, witness testimonies, confessions, etc.

[tsg]

I'm not sure that it is unreasonable to assume that someone soliciting sex in a public restroom is planning on having the sex right there. It certainly doesn't seem like the hand under the stall is a signal for "would you like to have dinner a week from Friday?"

If a majority of people who use this code subsequently engage in public sex, then it is reasonable to assume Craig would have as well. All the prosecutor has to prove is that in the majority of cases this code leads to public sex. They will probably do so using the arresting officer or some other police official possessing a number of years of proven experience in the area, along with accompanying documentation, witness testimonies, confessions, etc.

The question is not whether it is reasonable to assume he would have. According to the ACLU (and I am not saying they are necessarily right) there can't be any reasonable doubt that he wouldn't have. The burden of proof is on the police. That this code leads to public sex in the majority of cases is not proof that it would have in this instance. People shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on the actions of other people.

[tsg]

The First Amendment is interpreted by humans, who in turn are affected and appointed by other humans.

It's true that just because something makes me uncomfortable isn't sufficient reason to make it illegal but OTOH the sum total of what people think should be legal and illegal often determines what is ultimately legal and illegal.

I don't dispute that. I think you will find, however, that most people don't want to give the government the ability to put you in jail just for asking for sex.

[JoeEllison]

The question is not whether it is reasonable to assume he would have. According to the ACLU (and I am not saying they are necessarily right) there can't be any reasonable doubt that he wouldn't have. The burden of proof is on the police. That this code leads to public sex in the majority of cases is not proof that it would have in this instance. People shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on the actions of other people.
Again, that is an unfair burden on police. It also seems to reject the idea that experience is valid and useful to the police. Since no one can ever know anything absolutely, the police should now wait for crimes to be committed, and never stop a criminal before the crime is committed?
If I walk into a bank with a shotgun, a ski mask, and an empty duffle bag, and there is a cop there, he cannot arrest me for attempted bank robbery until I point the shotgun at a cashier and demand the cash? Can't stop me at the door?

[tsg]

Again, that is an unfair burden on police.

It is only unfair, if the ACLU is right, because the police made the arrest before they had enough evidence to show the solicitation was for public sex. They got sloppy.

It also seems to reject the idea that experience is valid and useful to the police. Since no one can ever know anything absolutely, the police should now wait for crimes to be committed, and never stop a criminal before the crime is committed?
If I walk into a bank with a shotgun, a ski mask, and an empty duffle bag, and there is a cop there, he cannot arrest me for attempted bank robbery until I point the shotgun at a cashier and demand the cash? Can't stop me at the door?

As far as I am aware, walking into a bank with a shotgun, ski mask and empty duffel bag isn't a constitutionally protected right.

But beyond that, it depends on whether or not the cop can show your intention was to rob the bank beyond a reasonable doubt. If the bank was in the middle of New York City during summer, he probably can. If it was in a rural area during winter hunting season, possibly not.

Ultimately it's up to a jury to decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt. The ACLU seems to think there is.

[ponderingturtle]

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Yep and here the ACLU is accusing the police of an unconstitutional sting. So let them present their evidence.

[ponderingturtle]

Until it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU claims it does.


So saying "I want to have sex with you in this bathroom right now" is legal because of the first amendment? Add in actions to support that they are serious about this.

[ponderingturtle]

The question is not whether it is reasonable to assume he would have. According to the ACLU (and I am not saying they are necessarily right) there can't be any reasonable doubt that he wouldn't have. The burden of proof is on the police. That this code leads to public sex in the majority of cases is not proof that it would have in this instance. People shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on the actions of other people.

So why do you infer what the ACLU means and not what others mean? You infer that they meant reasonable doubt when they only said doubt, but any small omission by anyone else is something to jump on?

[ponderingturtle]

It is only unfair, if the ACLU is right, because the police made the arrest before they had enough evidence to show the solicitation was for public sex. They got sloppy.

THe ACLU seems to want there to be a real sex act taking place, comunication is not enough.

[tsg]

Yep and here the ACLU is accusing the police of an unconstitutional sting. So let them present their evidence.

They have presented their argument. And, should it go to court, I am sure they will present their evidence there as well.

[tsg]

So saying "I want to have sex with you in this bathroom right now" is legal because of the first amendment? Add in actions to support that they are serious about this.

That isn't their claim. And it is patently obvious you have no intention of understanding what their claim really is.

[tsg]

So why do you infer what the ACLU means and not what others mean? You infer that they meant reasonable doubt when they only said doubt, but any small omission by anyone else is something to jump on?

See above.

[tsg]

THe ACLU seems to want there to be a real sex act taking place, comunication is not enough.

See above.

[Dancing David]

This might be the motive:

"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig’s arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."

I did post it because they were supporting a conservatives right to tap someone's foot in the bathroom without getting arrested.

[TragicMonkey]

I had no idea that sex in public was to be assumed okay and legal unless a sign was up noting otherwise!

Reminds me of George Costanza, when his boss asked him if he really had sex with the cleaning lady on his desk at work. "Was I not supposed to do that? Because nobody told me."

[tsg]

I had no idea that sex in public was to be assumed okay and legal unless a sign was up noting otherwise!

Strawman.

[JoeEllison]

As far as I am aware, walking into a bank with a shotgun, ski mask and empty duffel bag isn't a constitutionally protected right.

But beyond that, it depends on whether or not the cop can show your intention was to rob the bank beyond a reasonable doubt. If the bank was in the middle of New York City during summer, he probably can. If it was in a rural area during winter hunting season, possibly not.

And if you're trying to score gay sex in a men's room, you get arrested. I don't see the problem.

[TragicMonkey]

Strawman.

Nope. Observe, bolding mine:

It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."

The logical conclusion is that, absent a sign notifying otherwise, we may assume we have a constitutional right to engage in sex in any public place.

[tsg]

And if you're trying to score gay sex in a men's room, you get arrested. I don't see the problem.

You don't see a problem with getting arrested for doing nothing illegal?

[TragicMonkey]

You don't see a problem with getting arrested for doing nothing illegal?

How about attempted murder? That's just trying to kill someone...but nobody's died. How then can it be a crime?

[tsg]

How about attempted murder? That's just trying to kill someone...but nobody's died. How then can it be a crime?

Strawman.

Do you even want to understand or would you rather just be outraged? Because if it's the latter I'm not going to waste my time.

[TragicMonkey]

Do you even want to understand or would you rather just be outraged? Because if it's the latter I'm not going to waste my time.

Yeah, I'm so outraged. You can tell by my passion. The passion of someone who really emphasizes with a self-hating closetcase who got busted trying to get a BJ from a cop in a public bathroom, then tries to weasel out of it by explaining his typical crapping posture!

eta: Oh, and saying "strawman" to everything doesn't prove anything.

[TragicMonkey]

Strawman.

On the contrary. It's an example of a criminal charge that is possible without any crime taking place. Unless you think that attempting to do something can also be a crime.

Which is it? Attempted murder and attempted public sex are NOT crimes if those intentions aren't carried out due to being caught? Or they are? It seems inconsistent if you want to hold that attempted murder can be a crime whereas attempted public sex can't.

[tsg]

Yeah, I'm so outraged. You can tell by my passion. The passion of someone who really emphasizes with a self-hating closetcase who got busted trying to get a BJ from a cop in a public bathroom, then tries to weasel out of it by explaining his typical crapping posture!

eta: Oh, and saying "strawman" to everything doesn't prove anything.

Choice noted.

[JoeEllison]

You don't see a problem with getting arrested for doing nothing illegal?
You know he has already turned in a guilty plea, and this entire case is a matter of him trying to get out of a crime on a technicality, right?

[tsg]

On the contrary. It's an example of a criminal charge that is possible without any crime taking place. Unless you think that attempting to do something can also be a crime.

Which is it? Attempted murder and attempted public sex are NOT crimes if those intentions aren't carried out due to being caught? Or they are? It seems inconsistent if you want to hold that attempted murder can be a crime whereas attempted public sex can't.

That isn't the argument. Not even close.

ETA: Neither I nor the ACLU are claiming that he isn't guilty because the police prevented a crime from happening. The ACLU is claiming that there is reasonable doubt that there was ever a crime in the first place.

[TragicMonkey]

That isn't the argument. Not even close.

If you wish to make an argument, why don't you? "Strawman" doesn't really explain a lot.

WHY is soliciting sex in public "doing nothing illegal"?

[TragicMonkey]

That isn't the argument. Not even close.

ETA: Neither I nor the ACLU are claiming that he isn't guilty because the police prevented a crime from happening. The ACLU is claiming that there is reasonable doubt that there was ever a crime in the first place.

Because he didn't do it, or because soliciting sex in public isn't a crime?

[ponderingturtle]

That isn't their claim. And it is patently obvious you have no intention of understanding what their claim really is.

Given that they have changed thier web page on this since it was initialy posted, I am not sure they know what their claim really is either.

[ponderingturtle]

How about attempted murder? That's just trying to kill someone...but nobody's died. How then can it be a crime?

Naa, conspiracy to commit murder. It is only talking. I mean just because I said "I will give you ten thousand dollars to kill my wife" does not mean I was serious. Why should that be so illegal if sending signals like "I want to suck your penis in this bathroom right now, and I am married, doesn't that make you so hot" is a form of constutionaly protected speech.

[tsg]

Because he didn't do it, or because soliciting sex in public isn't a crime?

Because soliciting for sex is not a crime (and, according to the ACLU, constitutionally protected speech) unless the sex act is to occur in public.

[TragicMonkey]

Because soliciting for sex is not a crime (and, according to the ACLU, constitutionally protected speech) unless the sex act is to occur in public.

Unless the sex act is to occur in public? Then why say "they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom"? If public sex acts are criminal, and the ACLU believes they should remain criminal, why require a sign to point out, specially, that the bathroom is no different from anywhere else in the criminality of sex occurring there? They didn't suggest a "No Murdering People" sign for the bathroom.

And if the ACLU is naive enough to believe people cottage only so far as propositioning and then go get a hotel room...well, they'll believe anything.

[tsg]

Unless the sex act is to occur in public? Then why say "they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom"?

They didn't. What they said was

"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig’s arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."

And if the ACLU is naive enough to believe people cottage only so far as propositioning and then go get a hotel room...well, they'll believe anything.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Really. We've been through all this before. Drop your preconceptions and read the article and the thread.

[tsg]

There's even more.

In the ACLU's Amici Curiae (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf), they state:
Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law by restricting its application to “fighting words,” a restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction in this case a near impossibility.

[Michael Redman]

The ACLU's argument hinges on the possibility that the sex act that was being solicited might have taken place in private. They claim the government needed to craft the sting so as to be sure not to arrest people soliciting sex which would take place in private.

The police, on the other hand, contend that they have tailored the sting to only grab people intending to have public sex because they're only arresting people who are soliciting sex in the public restroom at the airport, and their experience tells them that people who solicit sex in the public restroom intend to have sex right there.

The position the police take is not unreasonable. The idea that the described behavior might be used to solicit sex in private is, in my opinion, unfounded speculation that flies in the face of experience and reason. The police are not required to prove the absence of a fictitious aggrieved innocent party.

[tsg]

The ACLU's argument hinges on the possibility that the sex act that was being solicited might have taken place in private. They claim the government needed to craft the sting so as to be sure not to arrest people soliciting sex which would take place in private.

As it turns out, the law Craig is being prosecuted for violating was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, except in the case of "fighting words" which is very unlikely to apply here.

[Michael Redman]

As it turns out, the law Craig is being prosecuted for violating was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, except in the case of "fighting words" which is very unlikely to apply here.

Or so the ACLU claims. Interestingly, they chose not to quote the language of that decision. Do you really think the Minnesota defense bar is so inept that they've been allowing clients to get convicted for 30 years under a law that's been so narrowly limited by the court?

Besides, if they're right, there's no reason to throw in the much weaker arguments that follow. My guess is that this argument has been raised previously, but unsuccessfully. If I get a chance, I plan to do more researching into this.

[ponderingturtle]

As it turns out, the law Craig is being prosecuted for violating was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, except in the case of "fighting words" which is very unlikely to apply here.

I don't think he is being prosecuted for anything. That is the law he plead guilty to. It is not nessacarily the only thing he could have been charged with.

[tsg]

Or so the ACLU claims.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Interestingly, they chose not to quote the language of that decision. Do you really think the Minnesota defense bar is so inept that they've been allowing clients to get convicted for 30 years under a law that's been so narrowly limited by the court?

That part is confusing. Their press release says nothing about the law being ruled unconstitutional as claimed in the Amici Curiae.

[tsg]

I don't think he is being prosecuted for anything. That is the law he plead guilty to. It is not nessacarily the only thing he could have been charged with.

Is that the sound of goalposts moving I here?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re the sex offender registry if it hasn't already been brought up here, I didn't do a state by state search for the laws regarding who gets on the list but as for the national criteria according to this website (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry_background.htm), lewd conduct in a public bathroom doesn't appear to get you on the list unless it involves a minor.Background on the National Sex Offenders Registry

Our Crimes Against Children Unit at FBI Headquarters coordinated the development of the National Sex Offenders Registry (NSOR) and continues to lead its implementation.

The Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (Lychner Act) required the Attorney General to establish a national database at the FBI to track the whereabouts and movements of certain convicted sex offenders under Title 42 of the United States Code Section 14072. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) run by the FBI enables the NSOR to retain the offender's current registered address and dates of registration, conviction, and residence.

The Lychner Act imposed two major obligations on the FBI that became effective October 3, 1997:

1. To establish a national database that tracks the location and movements of each person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor, has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, or is a sexually violent predator.

2. To register and verify the addresses of sex offenders who reside in states without a "minimally sufficient" sex offender registry (SOR) program. Today, all 50 states have minimally sufficient SOR programs.

Under the Act, the FBI may release relevant information to federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies for law enforcement purposes only. Public notification will only be made if it is necessary to protect the public. However, the Act specifically states that in no case shall the FBI release the identity of any victim of an offense that required registration of a sex offender.

The legislation also made it a criminal offense for a registered sex offender to move to another state and knowingly fail to notify the FBI and authorities in the new state. Notification to the FBI and state authorities must be made within 10 days upon moving to a new state and/or establishing residence following release from prison or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation. Upon release, each sex offender is notified of their lawful duty to register with the FBI and appropriate local authorities.

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexual Violent Offender Registration Program, enacted in 1994, provides a financial incentive for states to establish registration programs for persons who have been convicted of certain sex crimes.

Megan's Law, enacted in May 1996, amended the Wetterling Program legislation to give states broad discretion to determine to whom notification should be made about offenders, under what circumstances, and about which offenders.

[strathmeyer]

Because soliciting for sex is not a crime (and, according to the ACLU, constitutionally protected speech) unless the sex act is to occur in public.

Well, this is what was happening here, so what on earth are you talking about?

[tsg]

Well, this is what was happening here, so what on earth are you talking about?

The ACLU seems to think the police won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. That is what I'm talking about.

If you have more information than we do, please, enlighten us.

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is, or should be, illegal about wanting to suck on someone's penis?Nothing if you do it in private. A public bathroom is not private. And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, children use public bathrooms and little boys go in without their parent at very young ages, especially in public parks which is a common location for this perverted pleasure.

[tsg]

Nothing if you do it in private.

That is the point the ACLU is making.

A public bathroom is not private. And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, children use public bathrooms and little boys go in without their parent at very young ages, especially in public parks which is a common location for this perverted pleasure.

One more time, for the record, the ACLU is saying the police are unlikely to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was going to happen in public.

In short, your argument has nothing to do with what the ACLU is claiming.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is the point the ACLU is making.



One more time, for the record, the ACLU is saying the police are unlikely to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was going to happen in public.

In short, your argument has nothing to do with what the ACLU is claiming.Except there is a long history of this particular perversion and the point of the sex is to have it in the bathroom. There is even a book based on a guy's doctoral dissertation in psychology called "The Tearoom Trade, Impersonal Sex in Public Places" (http://books.google.com/books?id=7DFsL3RrTpoC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=h77PAq3b_N&sig=lYRb_onqaVY01Cmt9f8MrWjUfvU&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dthe%2Btearoom%2Btrade%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title) which examined the phenomena. It is well established that finding a private room is not likely intended.

Now if Craig wanted to make that argument he could have, but he didn't. He instead chose to deny he was soliciting sex. Again, the combination of gestures makes that explanation implausible.

[tsg]

Except there is a long history of this particular perversion and the point of the sex is to have it in the bathroom. There is even a book based on a guy's doctoral dissertation in psychology called "The Tearoom Trade, Impersonal Sex in Public Places" (http://books.google.com/books?id=7DFsL3RrTpoC&dq=&pg=PP1&ots=h77PAq3b_N&sig=lYRb_onqaVY01Cmt9f8MrWjUfvU&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Dthe%2Btearoom%2Btrade%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title) which examined the phenomena. It is well established that finding a private room is not likely intended.

Now if Craig wanted to make that argument he could have, but he didn't. He instead chose to deny he was soliciting sex. Again, the combination of gestures makes that explanation implausible.

Craig's statements are not the ACLU's claim.

[Dancing David]

Re the sex offender registry if it hasn't already been brought up here, I didn't do a state by state search for the laws regarding who gets on the list but as for the national criteria according to this website (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/cac/registry_background.htm), lewd conduct in a public bathroom doesn't appear to get you on the list unless it involves a minor.


In my state you can get on the registry for being charged with a crime and not convicted.

[Beerina]

No. They are saying that posting a sign and having a uniformed officer patrol occasionally is a more effective deterrent than undercover stings that do nothing more than pad an officer's collar count.

Unfortunately, if they can prevent the crime they can't make any arrests. Many people seem to associate more arrests with being tough on crime. I see more arrests as a failure to prevent crime.

To my Canadian eyes, law enforcement in the U.S. appears to be an industry rather than a public service. Maybe that's not accurate but it's the way I see it.

I'll never forget when I fought a "blocking" ticket in court. This was from crawling through a yellow light, then getting stopped halfway through when it turned red. They were happy to "take it under advisement", as long as I paid, and not put it on my record if, after a year, I had had no more incidents.

My lawyer quickly explained, "You know where the money goes, don't you? 1/3 to the police department, 1/3 to the state, and 1/3 to the judges' retirement pool fund."

It's unfortunate that people who get so bent out of shape over conflict of interest in the private sector have no issues with this.

[Michael Redman]

In my state you can get on the registry for being charged with a crime and not convicted.That makes me angry just to think about.

[Michael Redman]

My lawyer quickly explained, "You know where the money goes, don't you? 1/3 to the police department, 1/3 to the state, and 1/3 to the judges' retirement pool fund."

Your lawyer was distracting you from the realization that attorney fees were going to add a hefty premium to the fine, and you probably would have come out with the same deal if you had not been represented.

Good lawyer. :wink:

[strathmeyer]

The ACLU seems to think the police won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. That is what I'm talking about.

If you have more information than we do, please, enlighten us.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

Senator Craig entered a public bathroom stall and solicited a stranger for public sex, who happened to be an undercover police officer. Why are being condescending toward me when you yourself don't seem to understand the facts of the matter?

[tsg]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

Senator Craig entered a public bathroom stall and solicited a stranger for public sex,

Whether the police can prove this beyond a reasonable doubt is what is at issue here.

Why are being condescending toward me when you yourself don't seem to understand the facts of the matter?

Because you do not understand the argument in the slightest and have no intention to.

[RandFan]

This is the third thread about Craig and given that I've been involved in heated debate in the other two (I have to accept personal responsibility for that) I really didn't want to get involved in this one, but hey, it's Sunday and I've nothing else to do. :) I will try really hard to keep a level head here. Of course I just might be too late for the dance and everyone including Elvis has left the building. That would be fine with me.

The facts and or events and inferences to be drawn the way I see them:

The evidence strongly suggests that Craig was in the bathroom to solicit sex.
Craig denies this.
There is a taped discussion between Craig and the arresting officer.
The tape, in my opinion, goes against Craig.
The officer sounds credible and Craig sounds evasive, IMO.
Craig concedes some points but the significance of a few of these concessions are given more weight than I believe that they deserve by many in this forum, again, JMO. I'm not dismissing them but I am a bit skeptical of a number of the conclusions drawn from them.
Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Innocent people have been known to plead guilty to save themselves embarrassment.
Considering Craig's status and outspoken stance on homosexuality this is potentially very embarrassing for him (IMHO Craig is a hypocrite) and therefore there is good reason that Craig, assuming that he is innocent, would plead guilty.
I think the law is clearly unconstitutional.
I think Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
I think it very likely that past Supreme Courts would have found the law unconstitutional.
I think it more likely than not that the current court will also find it unconstitutional.
Not liking Craig is a poor reason to ignore the problems with this case.
I'm not saying that those who think that Craig is guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt are saying so because they dislike Craig. I do suspect that though.
Presumption of innocence is a concept in the law that is important to American jurisprudence.The concept is a legal one and does not preclude citizens from forming an opinion based on the evidence outside of court.
Any of us, if we were innocent and accused of a crime would want others not to rush to judgment (see Duke Lacrosse Rape Case).
Caveat: Though a firm supporter of the ACLU I have not always agreed with them. In fact I have taken a hard stance against them in at least one case regarding the criminality of the possession of child pornography.

[RandFan]

THe ACLU seems to want there to be a real sex act taking place, communication is not enough. Yes. under these circumstances that is what they want. Communication is Protected under the first Amendment of the Constitution.

There are few exceptions to this. One is solicitation. To stand up in court the solicitation must be clear and unambiguous. If I proposition an undercover officer $50 for a BJ then that is clear and unambiguous. If I wink at the officer and hold up 5 fingers that's not so clear. It might hold up in court it might not.

However, the ACLU has indicated that it is possible to reduce this behavior with uniformed officers. If an undercover officer can spend his time in a bathroom then a uniformed one could regularly patrol.

[tsg]

This is the third thread about Craig and given that I've been involved in heated debate in the other two (I have to accept personal responsibility for that) I really didn't want to get involved in this one, but hey, it's Sunday and I've nothing else to do. :) I will try really hard to keep a level head here. Of course I just might be too late for the dance and everyone including Elvis has left the building. That would be fine with me.

The facts and or events and inferences to be drawn the way I see them:

The evidence strongly suggests that Craig was in the bathroom to solicit sex.
Craig denies this.
There is a taped discussion between Craig and the arresting officer.
The tape, in my opinion, goes against Craig.
The officer sounds credible and Craig sounds evasive, IMO.
Craig concedes some points but the significance of a few of these concessions are given more weight than I believe that they deserve by many in this forum, again, JMO. I'm not dismissing them but I am a bit skeptical of a number of the conclusions drawn from them.
Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.
Innocent people have been known to plead guilty to save themselves embarrassment.
Considering Craig's status and outspoken stance on homosexuality this is potentially very embarrassing for him (IMHO Craig is a hypocrite) and therefore there is good reason that Craig, assuming that he is innocent, would plead guilty.
I think the law is clearly unconstitutional.
I think Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
I think it very likely that past Supreme Courts would have found the law unconstitutional.
I think it more likely than not that the current court will also find it unconstitutional.
Not liking Craig is a poor reason to ignore the problems with this case.
I'm not saying that those who think that Craig is guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt are saying so because they dislike Craig. I do suspect that though.
Presumption of innocence is a concept in the law that is important to American jurisprudence.The concept is a legal one and does not preclude citizens from forming an opinion based on the evidence outside of court.
Any of us, if we were innocent and accused of a crime would want others not to rush to judgment (see Duke Lacrosse Rape Case).
Caveat: Though a firm supporter of the ACLU I have not always agreed with them. In fact I have taken a hard stance against them in at least one case regarding the criminality of the possession of child pornography.

I agree.

I will only add that my point is not whether Craig's intention was to have sex in a public bathroom, and neither is the ACLU's. My point is that there can be no discussion of whether the ACLU is right or wrong if their arguments are misrepresented.

[Michael Redman]

I think Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea.

Why?

[RandFan]

Why?

Because it is arguable that he entered a gulty plea only out of fear that exposure would be embarasing and cost him his Senate seat.
Because the law that he was originaly accused of is unconstitutional (IMO) and I would like to see it challenged.
Because (IMO) the law he pled guilty to is vague and overly broad.

[RandFan]

My point is that there can be no discussion of whether the ACLU is right or wrong if their arguments are misrepresented. I had intentionally not followed the thread. I'll go back and look. In any event, yes, misrepresenting the arguments makes the discussion impossible.

[RandFan]

Nothing if you do it in private. A public bathroom is not private. And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, children use public bathrooms and little boys go in without their parent at very young ages, especially in public parks which is a common location for this perverted pleasure. How often is the sex act exposed? In other words, isn't this kind of behavior something that happens in a closed stall?

[RandFan]

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. Could you demonstrate this? It might be, I don't know. It seems that so much is simply assumed in this case.

Lewd conduct (http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/lewd.html)

The definition and penalties for lewd conduct crimes depends on the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case.

The definition for what is considered a lewd act varies greatly. According to http://www.nolo.com/index.cfm (http://www.nolo.com/index.cfm), the legal definition for the term "lewd” is: “Any conduct that is considered indecent or offensive. Today the term is often used when referring to pornography, prostitution and indecent exposure."

...

For example, many people have been made to believe that having a sexual encounter in a public restroom is considered lewd conduct in California, but in many cases no laws have been violated. If the restroom is empty and no person witnesses the act, the violations which amount to a lewd act have not been committed and the individual in question (defendant) is not guilty.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In my state you can get on the registry for being charged with a crime and not convicted.Well let's not exaggerate there, DD. While true, the way you put it here is misleading. I think they're just allowing for plea bargaining which is common in the justice system in every state.

Illinois sex offender registry information (http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/) Persons required to register as Sex Offenders are persons who have been charged of an offense listed in Illinois Compiled Statutes 730 ILCS 150/2(B) when such charge results in one of the following:

(a) A conviction for the commission of the offense or attempt to commit the offense,

(b) A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity of committing the offense or attempting to commit the offense, or

(c) A finding not resulting in an acquittal at a hearing for the alleged commission or attempted commission of the offense. (emphasis mine)

[Skeptic Ginger]

How often is the sex act exposed? In other words, isn't this kind of behavior something that happens in a closed stall?Slate article by C Hitchens on "The Tearoom Trade". (http://www.slate.com/id/2173112/nav/tap3/)In his study of men who frequent public restrooms in search of sex, Laud Humphreys discovered that 54 percent were married and living with their wives, 38 percent did not consider themselves homosexual or bisexual, and only 14 percent identified themselves as openly gay. Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Personal Places, a doctoral thesis which was published in 1970, detailed exactly the pattern—of foot-tapping in code, hand-gestures, and other tactics—which has lately been garishly publicized at a Minneapolis-St. Paul airport men's room. The word tearoom seems to have become archaic, but in all other respects the fidelity to tradition is impressive.


...snip...Breach of Rule 4 removed.

Since the thrill includes the publicness of the act, one has to assume it isn't completely privately carried out. If it were, then why do it in the bathroom in the first place?

And it appears the stall being public or private is debatable, but not paying to enter the stall argues it is public.

Again, the nusiance of this crime gets lost in this argument over the rights of consenting adults. Parents shouldn't have to worry sending their kids into a public bathroom in a park or elsewhere that the child will come across two men butt(rule8) between two toilet stall dividers. If these guys were so discreet, who would have known to complain which is why the police were in the bathroom in the first place.

[RandFan]

Since the thrill includes the publicness of the act, one has to assume it isn't completely privately carried out. If it were, then why do it in the bathroom in the first place?

And it appears the stall being public or private is debatable, but not paying to enter the stall argues it is public.

Again, the nusiance of this crime gets lost in this argument over the rights of consenting adults. Parents shouldn't have to worry sending their kids into a public bathroom in a park or elsewhere that the child will come across two men butt(rule8) between two toilet stall dividers. If these guys were so discreet, who would have known to complain which is why the police were in the bathroom in the first place. A few points.

This is the first time I've seen a direct reference about foot tapping and hand gestures. I've been asking for days for something like this. It's not been tested in a court of law but it's good.
I'm a huge Hitchens' fan. I like reading anything and everything that he writes.
I'm not sure why you posted all of that. While I like Hitchens' I don't think it is appropriate to post so much when a paragraph or two would suffice. You make it difficult to have a discussion.
You didn't answer my question.
As to your assumption, 4 legs and feet under the door are likely enough to fulfill the public titillation these people require.
It's easy to tell when more than one person is in the stall and an adult would have no problem deducing what is going on. A child I'm not so sure and even if they did I'm not sure how much damage would be done.
I would like to see something concrete that people are having sex in full view of everyone in the bathroom.
I've never bent down to watch what is going on between bathroom stalls. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that a child would go into a bathroom and do so.I'm not saying it's not an important issue. It is. I'm just wary about how serious the issue is. It seems mostly a nuisance.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The same arguments keep being repeated in these threads. They really need to be broken down into their separate issues. Otherwise it's like we are playing "rock-paper-scissors" -> rights of consenting adults, nuisance of this behavior in a public bathroom, Craig solicited the sex but didn't get caught carrying it out.

rock: I'm sure we all agree consenting adults should be able to have the sex of their choice.

paper: Is it or is it not private in a public bathroom and is it a nuisance crime to have sex in public bathrooms?

It may seem innocuous if you forget about the inadvertent consequences. Kids are going to use the bathroom, they are going to see the activity, condoms may be left around (and they could be anyway but lets not pretend having sex in the bathroom doesn't increase the likelihood), people obviously notice or they wouldn't be complaining, the perps are getting some of their jollies out of the danger of being noticed.

I would also add it is a public health problem having random sex encounters. It increases the risk of STDs including HIV and these guys are often married to unsuspecting partners. Risky sex can result in death from HIV and that includes innocent participants (namely the spouse).

scissors: Was the sting operation legit or entrapment? Did soliciting the sex cross the line or was more needed to constitute lewd behavior?

I think it's absurd to argue Craig was doing something else. And this kind of behavior includes the public sex. The legal standard is reasonable doubt and it is unreasonable to assume the gestures were anything but soliciting sex based on the fact there was a combination of gestures with no other reasonable explanation (wide stance is not reasonable*), and unreasonable based on the documentation by psychology researchers about this behavior to presume the sex was intended to be carried out somewhere besides in the bathroom.

Perhaps in this case the cop should have waited for more steps in the ritual to have occurred before making the arrest such as waiting for a more specific statement of intent. But frankly, arguing this point as if Craig's rights were denied is beyond what I think the ACLU should be concerned about. If all the worry is merely over a hasty judgment call, then a plausible alternative should be presented as to what else the stall peeking, foot tapping, foot bumping, stall divider rubbing ritual could have meant besides sex in the public bathroom.

If the ACLU is arguing men should be able to get it on in a public bathroom stall then they need to explain why that doesn't interfere with my rights as a parent to send a young child into that bathroom unaccompanied.

*Don't read if you don't want to ruin your day with a particular mental picture.*Wide stance is not conducive to defecating as it results in a tightened anal sphincter.

[RandFan]

Social interaction and freedom is often a messy thing. An important American freedom is expression. We should be careful when and how we infringe upon it.

Arresting someone for expressing to another the desire to have sex in a public place shouldn't per se be illegal IMO. On the other hand, a parent should be able to feel secure sending his or her child into a bathroom.

How do we balance the right of expression with the rights of parents? Is a sting operation the best way to do that? I don't think so. I think there are better methods that don't infringe on the right to free speech.

I think the ACLU is right on this one.

As to the rest, if Craig is allowed to withdraw his plea then he is entitled to a fair trial. Saying that we should give him a fair trial and then punish him because we have gone over all of the evidence and have concluded that Craig is guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt seems a bit premature in my mind.

[Skeptic Ginger]

A few points.

This is the first time I've seen a direct reference about foot tapping and hand gestures. I've been asking for days for something like this. It's not been tested in a court of law but it's good.Oh come on, Rand. I posted the Tearoom Trade book reference, the police manual and the website which spelled out the foot tapping ritual for anyone wanting to engage in the activity.
I'm a huge Hitchens' fan. I like reading anything and everything that he writes.
I'm not sure why you posted all of that. While I like Hitchens' I don't think it is appropriate to post so much when a paragraph or two would suffice. You make it difficult to have a discussion.
You didn't answer my question.
As to your assumption, 4 legs and feet under the door are likely enough to fulfill the public titillation these people require.
It's easy to tell when more than one person is in the stall and an adult would have no problem deducing what is going on. A child I'm not so sure and even if they did I'm not sure how much damage would be done.
I would like to see something concrete that people are having sex in full view of everyone in the bathroom.
I've never bent down to watch what is going on between bathroom stalls. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that a child would go into a bathroom and do so.I'm not saying it's not an important issue. It is. I'm just wary about how serious the issue is. It seems mostly a nuisance.Your argument you can't imagine how this would harm kids is not evidence, it is your naive opinion. Of course kids would see something 'weird' was going on whether or not they understood it. As a parent, excuse me but I don't need to justify to you why I would prefer men not be butt(rule8) in the bathroom I send my child into (when he was younger) and any defense that it's no big deal is quite frankly, ludicrous. And once again, people complained. Obviously they had to have noticed something.

[RandFan]

Oh come on, Rand. I posted the Tearoom Trade book reference, the police manual and the website which spelled out the foot tapping ritual for anyone wanting to engage in the activity. You posted copious amounts of material and I could not find the reference. I asked and asked for it.

Why not simply post the relevant part if it is so important?

Your argument you can't imagine how this would harm kids is not evidence, it is your naive opinion. I make no such argument. I ask you to demonstrate that it does.

Of course kids would see something 'weird' was going on whether or not they understood it. I'm sorry but this is not at all specific. What do you mean? What is this something "weird"? Four legs under a stall?

As a parent, excuse me but I don't need to justify to you why I would prefer men not be butt(rule8) in the bathroom I send my child into (when he was younger) and any defense that it's no big deal is quite frankly, ludicrous. And once again, people complained. Obviously they had to have noticed something. Of course you don't have to justify anything to me. If you want others to agree with you then you should be able to make an argument as to why they should agree with you.

[tsg]

If the ACLU is arguing men should be able to get it on in a public bathroom stall

They aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Drop your preconceptions, read their brief (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf) and you'll be able to see that for yourself.

.

[Skeptic Ginger]

They aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Drop your preconceptions, read their brief (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf) and you'll be able to see that for yourself.

.It's not a matter of preconceived anything, it's a matter of being tired of this topic and of repeating why I don't want public bathrooms to be used as sex-rooms.

But, sigh, since the thread technically is on yet another aspect of this case, I looked at your link. The ACLU isn't arguing about the sting, nor the sex, they are arguing the disorderly conduct charge is based on a law which is not specific enough. Seems they don't like plea bargaining when the lesser charge is really not the correct charge.

So Craig should have been charged with lewd conduct and the cop should have let Craig go a bit further in his endeavor. I can't see that this is the case someone including the ACLU needs to be addressing. Not that the behavior is creepy and the ACLU shouldn't defend it, that is their role. But the case here is simply plea bargaining that then makes the charges seem to not apply. If the charges were lewd conduct, then you get back to Rand's constantly shifting position, the gestures were lewd, the gestures weren't lewd.

Perhaps one needs to define lewd conduct better. Makes you wonder why this hasn't come up and been resolved before now.

[RandFan]

They aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Drop your preconceptions, read their brief (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf) and you'll be able to see that for yourself.

.That's quite a read. Thank you ver much.

[RandFan]

...then you get back to Rand's constantly shifting position, the gestures were lewd, the gestures weren't lewd. I can only say that I'm very disapointed. This is not true. I have maintained the very same position from the begining.

I appologized to you for personalizing the discussion. That was wrong. I'm going to ask you now to stop. Please don't make this about me. It's counter to the rules.

Fair enough?

[skeptifem]

after reading the aclu's argument i have to agree with them.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can only say that I'm very disapointed. This is not true. I have maintained the very same position from the begining.

I appologized to you for personalizing the discussion. That was wrong. I'm going to ask you now to stop. Please don't make this about me. It's counter to the rules.

Fair enough?I wasn't trying to insult you, I was serious. I posted a lot of evidence you just dismissed out of hand without ever addressing. And after you finally admitted there was evidence the gestures were part of the sexual ritual activity, you went back to denying you had conceded they were.

I'm insulted when people tell me I haven't posted any evidence after I've gone to great lengths to research a point or a topic.

[Skeptic Ginger]

after reading the aclu's argument i have to agree with them.
Yes, on the overly broadness of the disorderly conduct law. But I can't see that they addressed the fact Craig was charged under that law as part of the plea bargain. Is the ACLU against plea bargaining?

[RandFan]

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was serious. I posted a lot of evidence you just dismissed out of hand without ever addressing. And after you finally admitted there was evidence the gestures were part of the sexual ritual activity, you went back to denying you had conceded they were. This is not true. The fact is that I did not understand something that you were saying. When I realized your point I conceded the point (just that point). From the very beginning I've been consistent. I've said over and over that they gestures likely were what was being alleged.

So stop making this about me. I've asked you politely but you insist. I'm reporting you. Please stop.

I'm insulted when people tell me I haven't posted any evidence after I've gone to great lengths to research a point or a topic. This is not true. I never said you never posted any evidence. I acknowledged that you posted a lot of evidence. I noted the tea room evidence and I've said many times that given the evidence Craig is likely guilty.

Please stop.

[RandFan]

I wasn't trying to insult you... BTW, I never said that you tried to insult me. I said that you are making this about me. That is against the rules. Stop.

[ponderingturtle]

Is that the sound of goalposts moving I here?

Well you are very familiar with that, rewriting what the ACLU claims to fit your ideas.

[ponderingturtle]

The ACLU seems to think the police won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. That is what I'm talking about.

If you have more information than we do, please, enlighten us.

You keep putting words in the ACLU's mouth.

[ponderingturtle]

Craig's statements are not the ACLU's claim.

Funnily enough neither are yours.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes. under these circumstances that is what they want. Communication is Protected under the first Amendment of the Constitution.

Exactly, TSG keeps claiming that it is because as the ACLU stated can not be doubt, but unlike the ACLU he keeps saying reasonable doubt. And denying that they are arguing that propositioning for an illegal activity should be legal. That seems to be a basic part of their argument.

There are few exceptions to this. One is solicitation. To stand up in court the solicitation must be clear and unambiguous. If I proposition an undercover officer $50 for a BJ then that is clear and unambiguous. If I wink at the officer and hold up 5 fingers that's not so clear. It might hold up in court it might not.

So non verbal communication is by definition more ambiguous than verbal? Slang must also be more ambiguous as well.

However, the ACLU has indicated that it is possible to reduce this behavior with uniformed officers. If an undercover officer can spend his time in a bathroom then a uniformed one could regularly patrol.

You forgot the signs, people need signs to tell them it is illegal to have sex in public.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree.

I will only add that my point is not whether Craig's intention was to have sex in a public bathroom, and neither is the ACLU's. My point is that there can be no discussion of whether the ACLU is right or wrong if their arguments are misrepresented.

Then stop putting words in their mouth.

[ponderingturtle]

*Don't read if you don't want to ruin your day with a particular mental picture.*Wide stance is not conducive to defecating as it results in a tightened anal sphincter.

It is also hard to manage a wide stance when your pants are pulled down. So either he had his pant up, off, or he is lying. I can't believe anyone buys this.

[ponderingturtle]

Social interaction and freedom is often a messy thing. An important American freedom is expression. We should be careful when and how we infringe upon it.

Arresting someone for expressing to another the desire to have sex in a public place shouldn't per se be illegal IMO. On the other hand, a parent should be able to feel secure sending his or her child into a bathroom.


You are mixing desire and intent. Wanting to have sex in a public bathroom fine, wanting someone to kill your wife, fine, asking someone to do either is very different though.

Or should we have bathrooms marked as which ones are the ones to have sex in?

[tsg]

Okay, I quit.

With precious few exceptions there is little desire to actually understand the issue here. I guess expecting rationality from a board full of skeptics was a little too much to hope for.

Go ahead and build your strawmen so you can make yourselves feel righteous by knocking them down.

I'm not interested.

[Dancing David]

Well let's not exaggerate there, DD. While true, the way you put it here is misleading. I think they're just allowing for plea bargaining which is common in the justice system in every state.

Illinois sex offender registry information (http://www.isp.state.il.us/sor/)(emphasis mine)


that would be much clearer and i assumed it was part of the plea bargin process as well, I just know that it has been reported that there are people who were charged but not convicted that are on the registry.

I sure did not mean to be misleading.

[Dancing David]

Okay, I quit.

With precious few exceptions there is little desire to actually understand the issue here. I guess expecting rationality from a board full of skeptics was a little too much to hope for.

Go ahead and build your strawmen so you can make yourselves feel righteous by knocking them down.

I'm not interested.

Bravo!

What was that about?

[RandFan]

So non verbal communication is by definition more ambiguous than verbal? I said "it might hold up in court". If it needs to be unambigous and it holds up in court then the logical implications is that non-verbal language can be just as unambigous.

You forgot the signs, people need signs to tell them it is illegal to have sex in public. I don't think that is the purpose of the signs. I think the signs are to let people know that such activity won't be tolerated.

[RandFan]

You are mixing desire and intent. Wanting to have sex in a public bathroom fine, wanting someone to kill your wife, fine, asking someone to do either is very different though. Why is asking someone to have sex in a public place not ok?

I posted a legal opinion that having sex in a public bathroom isn't per se lewd in many jurisdictions.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....I posted a legal opinion that having sex in a public bathroom isn't per se lewd in many jurisdictions.So you either think children have no right to use a public park bathroom, you think it's fine if they walk in on two (or more) guys butt(rule8)ing, or you don't believe the activity would be noticed by those kids despite the fact the police only get involved when people who do notice call and complain.

I also posted a legal opinion that in England, despite arguing paying to use the loo made it a private place, it was judged not to be. So where is it legal to have sex in a public place?

[ponderingturtle]

Why is asking someone to have sex in a public place not ok?


Why is asking someone to do something illegal not OK? Are you serious?

If you want to legalize bathroom sex then that would change things.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Why is asking someone to do something illegal not OK? Are you serious?

If you want to legalize bathroom sex then that would change things.

I think it would be useful to clarify what is being discussed here, to avoid any possible misunderstandings.

Are we talking about asking, in a public place, someone to have sex, or asking someone to have sex in a public place?

[RandFan]

So you either think children have no right to use a public park bathroom, you think it's fine if they walk in on two (or more) guys butt(rule8)ing, or you don't believe the activity would be noticed by those kids despite the fact the police only get involved when people who do notice call and complain.

I also posted a legal opinion that in England, despite arguing paying to use the loo made it a private place, it was judged not to be. So where is it legal to have sex in a public place? I've told you time and again I don't think it is ok. You are not engaging in logically valid argument but are instead focusing on me and doing so when you know what you are saying is untrue.

A child might notice that something unusual is going on but how would the child know what was going on? The activity is in a single stall behind closed doors or is between stalls. A child would have to bend down to peer under the stall to see anything.

[RandFan]

Why is asking someone to do something illegal not OK? Are you serious? Damn straight I am and I told you why.

If you want to legalize bathroom sex then that would change things.Such behavior is illegal, in many if not most places, only if it is being witnessed. There IS a basis for my question.

[ponderingturtle]

Damn straight I am and I told you why.


So when do you think proposing illegal activities should be illegal?

[RandFan]

So when do you think proposing illegal activities should be illegal?First off it is only potentially illegal (in many jurisdictions)

As to your question, most of the time. In this instance and perhaps others there are better ways to deal with the situation rather than outlawing speech.