The ACLU Defends Our Freedom to have Sex in Toilets

[Doug]

Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union! This group of liberals is in the forefront of defending our freedoms.

And now they have discovered a dangerous new threat: our right to homosexual contact in public toilets is under fire from vicious conservatives!

But the ACLU is on the job.

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private

Tue Jan 15, 11:15 PM ET


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

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

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

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

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.

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

Full details here.

 

[mattskramer]

Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union! This group of liberals is in the forefront of defending our freedoms.

And now they have discovered a dangerous new threat: our right to homosexual contact in public toilets is under fire from vicious conservatives!

But the ACLU is on the job.


Full details here.

I’ll admit that sometimes the ACLU goes “over the top” with its civil liberties and privacy crusades. Yet, with all things considered, I’d rather have such a watchdog organization exist than not exist.

Notice that the ACLU is helping a Republican.

 

[Doug]

Matt: I have no quarrel with some of what the ACLU does. In fact, before about 1970, I think it was almost 100% correct. (In fact, I was a member in the early 60s, recruited by my Sunday School teacher who was head of the ACLU in Houston.) In fairness, it should be noted that conservatives were not very good champions of free speech during the period that the ACLU was fighting for it.

Then it changed, along with American liberalism, and became immune from common sense. It added leftist advocacy to its civil liberties positions, and began to specialize in dismantling our everything in our cultural heritage which finds expression in public institutions. A terrible degeneration!

I will give the ACLU credit for being consistent. They will, pretty generally, defend the civil liberties of conservatives, although there is a wing of the ACLU -- I think the California bunch is like this -- which is not really happy about this.

Since the serious Left is opposed to civil liberty, this creates a certain tension between them and the ACLU. The ACLU, for instance, does not go along with forbidding speech that hurts the feelings of favored minority groups, which the serious Left wants to do.

Genuine liberals who do support across-the-board free speech, and who have retained their common sense -- old-fashioned pre-70s liberals as I see them -- ought to join the ACLU en masse and put it back on the right course.

 

[AllieBaba]

1970 was 38 years ago.

THe ACLU had its day. Now it's a mess and an embarassment, just like the UN.

 

[midcan5]

That is rather funny and interesting. I have never agreed with entrapment, if something is done between consenting adults so be it. I give them credit for speaking up in this case.

 

[Doug]

I'd personally like to be able to go to the toilet without being importuned by the fellow in the next stall, and without hearing the gruntings and groanings of copulation while I'm trying to have a pee.

At the end of the day, conservatism is 75% just the defense of common sense. All the stuff about liberty and Burke and so on is all very well, but really, it's just good old-fashioned common sense. Liberals used to have common sense (as compared to today, at least) but they suffered brain damage during the swinging sixties and have not yet recovered. Let's hope they do so soon.

 

[AllieBaba]

You're right. We all have the right to walk down the street and use a public restroom without having to be a part of a sexual act.

 

[Shogun]

blah blah liberals blah blah blah.


I wonder if Doug could really discern the difference between groaning that stems from restroom sex or the aftermath of a chipotle burrito. Never miss a shot at talking shit about liberals though!


Is the 30 something year old statute any less viable than when conservatives went spelunking to find a legal definition for Undercover Operative with Val. Plame? Funny how that works, Doug.


I agree that sex in a public restroom (the death of the mile high club) is not what the assumed privacy should extend to. However, using this as one more reason to beat the dead horse of your hatred of liberals is about as funny as your performance in the last thread where I took you to task for similar liberal bashing. If the ACLU found an applicable law that is old and needs to be changed then go change it instead of crying about liberals and the ACLU. the ACLU didnt invent the fucking statute being quoted, did they? Should they ignore it's application just because you don't like how it reads or it's age? Jesus christ, the first amendment is over 200 years old. so what.

 

[AllieBaba]

the only hate I'm seeing here is yours, Shogun.

 

[Shogun]

of course! you share his opinion of liberals.


now, lets not make this about me. Rather, tell me what kind of statue of limitation we need to apply to legal presedence, Allie. Why is it that a 30 year old definition of an undercover operative is acceptable when the above legal criteria is not? Are you telling me that you DONT expect privacy when taking a shit in a public restroom? Do you expect a saleman to knock on the door just when you sit down? While I do not agree that public restroom are places where people have the RIGHT to have sex and do agree that private businesses have every RIGHT to kick out such patrons I want to know how on earth the AGE of a valid law has anything to do with the ACLU when conservatives did the same damn thing when trying to define what an outed agent is.

If anything, the ACLU is consistent as the day is long. If the law is bad then change the law instead of blaming the ACLU for using APPLICABLE LAW.

 

[AllieBaba]

Well, that may be...but I'm basing that comment based on the tone of your comments, and the hate-filled rhetoric.

I mean, it's just language. But it's all we have to communicate with, so it has to mean something.

And I believe the law says no soliciting. Or was it no sex between same sexes? I forget which he got nailed on.

 

[Shogun]

While my tone is aggressive, my vocab tenacious, and my ego is deep with attitude, you would be hard pressed to find me treating you, or conservatives in general, how people like Doug and RGS automatically treat liberals so spare me the consternation.

For the record.. while I think it hilariously ironic the actions of craig versus his political positions, i've always thought that the evidence in his charge was weak as hell. The most damning aspect was his quickness to plea. Had he originally chosen to fight he would seem less guilty of solicitation. That being said, again, Public restrooms shoud not be a bstion of George Micheal dates BUT the law says what the law says. Is it applicable? If so, don't bitch at the ACLU for legal precedence from the past when we both know republicans do the same shit.


Hopefully, that wasn't too hateful sounding.

 

[AllieBaba]

Politicians are just people, sad, messed up people, by and large. Just like anybody else.

We all have weaknesses...but just because we are weak and stupid doesn't mean we shouldn't strive after that which is strong and good.

So despite the fact that his behavior flies in the fact of his political stance, it doesn't mean the stance is wrong. It just means he's a flipping idiot.