ACLU: thumbs up to public bathroom sex

  • Thriller83

    Posts: 71

    Jan 16, 2008 10:18 PM GMT
    I am a civil liberterian to a point but you've gotta be fucking kidding me about this....

    http://news.aol.com/story/_a/aclu-calls-sex-in-restroom-stalls/20080116073809990001
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:15 PM GMT
    LOL...

    Wait..but wasn't Mr. Craig out on the open and not in a closed stall?

    And if their defending him doesn't that mean in order to claim an expectation of privacy he needs to be admitting to engaging in sexual activity?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:19 PM GMT
    (no, trance, he was in a closed stall)

    thriller, did you read the article? they aren't condoning sex in public restrooms.

    they are making a valid legal argument about the notion of privacy and the invasion thereof...

    i'm not a fan of larry craig (or sex in public bathrooms) but that's not the point --

    remember, the guy never had sex, never exposed himself, and never offered money.

    it's a bullshit case, really, and i'm glad for organizations like the ACLU.

    when it's YOU who is arrested for tapping your foot in the restroom, whatever your intention may have been, you will be glad that someone out there is looking out for your civil liberties.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:21 PM GMT
    The reason I find this funny is as far as the article points out the last case was about an expectation of privacy when engaging in sexual activities. Now I'm not the senator but I can't image why he would try and use that old ruling to show a clear defense for himself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:22 PM GMT
    trance, because it's not about the SEX, it's about the notion of privacy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:24 PM GMT
    Privacy has nothing to do with it. I'm more concerned with him now going back to office. He pleaded guilty and now he changes his mind.

    If he wins then good for him, he's innocent.

    But he still pleaded guilty to begin with... it's just hard to imagine how he can go about and face anyone knowing they all know he pleaded guilty. I guess he has pretty thick skin.
  • BlackJock79

    Posts: 437

    Jan 16, 2008 11:26 PM GMT
    They have a good point. He was in a stall and not out in the open. When you are in a stall taking a dump or doing anything else private nobody is supposed to come in that you don't invite come in. If he wins this case with that argument could you IMAGINE how much screwing would go on in rest stop bathrooms and any other bathroom? LMAO! Plumbers would make a killing because I know hundreds of toilets would be clogged from condoms every month. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:28 PM GMT
    trance, privacy has everything do to with the legal argument. that's what the entire case is now based around. he plead guilty initially because he IS guilty. icon_smile.gif

    but anyway. he is already back in office (he never left), and his term is almost over. he's a hypocritical creep, to be sure, but when we start arresting people for tapping their foot, well... it's a slippery slope. icon_smile.gif

    blackjock, remember, there was never any sex. no indecent exposure. no offer of money. just some weird gestures. not exactly illegal. i'm not sure if he wins it will cause any MORE sex to be going on in restrooms than is already happening. icon_smile.gif
  • irishkcguy

    Posts: 780

    Jan 16, 2008 11:33 PM GMT
    Wasn't Craig using his foot to make physical contact with the guy in the stall next to him? I thought that's where the good old "wide stance" argument came into play.
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Jan 16, 2008 11:33 PM GMT
    If you are in a stall taking a crap by yourself, you should have an expectation of privacy because you using the stall as intended and not trying to draw attention to yourself. Sen. Craig was actively engaging in acts designed to draw attention to himself and his intentions, which should negate any expectation of privacy...
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Jan 16, 2008 11:35 PM GMT
    JonnyFreestyle said(no, trance, he was in a closed stall)

    thriller, did you read the article? they aren't condoning sex in public restrooms.

    they are making a valid legal argument about the notion of privacy and the invasion thereof...

    i'm not a fan of larry craig (or sex in public bathrooms) but that's not the point --

    remember, the guy never had sex, never exposed himself, and never offered money.

    it's a bullshit case, really, and i'm glad for organizations like the ACLU.

    when it's YOU who is arrested for tapping your foot in the restroom, whatever your intention may have been, you will be glad that someone out there is looking out for your civil liberties.


    "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."

    What part of that says that the ACLU doesn't condone it? I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to eliminate yesterdays meal, when in a public restroom. If I want privacy, I can get a motel room or take the person home or to a private location, not have sex in a room where minors and people (of all sexual orientations) that don't want or need to participate in what I'm doing can hear or see.

    Should this be an excuse given by those that have sex in a steam room at the gym?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:36 PM GMT
    Even if you look at Craig as soliciting sex, people solicit sex in public all the time. In any public bar, men and women do it all the time...pursuing little clues to see if the other is interested.

    In our society, somehow sex is special. Well, maybe when pregnancy is concerned. But what's wrong with the sex act itself. Why should I be concerned if two people are getting on or just shaking hands. It is a case of what you are used to, in my humble opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:40 PM GMT
    I'm not going to get into the mishmash of Sen. Craig however I have a few points to make regarding my opinion. So don't take the following as either condoning or persecuting Craig's actions. For the record I don't like Sen. Craig.

    Trance, have you never accepted blame for something even though you knew you were innocent?

    If a couple is doing something that would normally be considered as obscured from my being an unwitting party to it, then I don't care that it is happening. But don't leave a mess either.

    It seems that the public is entirely more willing to let people join the mile high club and get their variously colored wings by sexual exploits as long as the couple is straight. If you're gay however then it's a dastardly crime.

    I don't care if two men agree to have sex by some form of communications between bathroom stalls. How does that differ from hooking up with someone online? "It's private!" I'm sure someone yells. Well unless you're sticking your head into those stalls, it's private between the two of them as well. Just as it's private for two people to have sex in a stall like it's private for it to happen in a motel room or at a home.

    It does bother me significantly that people are so eager to trash the actions of other people especially when it comes to sexually related issues.

    Is tapping your foot in a bathroom stall any different than getting "that look" at the bar? at the club? at your local burger joint?

    Now that I've made my points, on to Craig.

    Flip-flopping like this is in poor taste. It's in the past, there's your side of the story and their side of the story and what got said and written down in the report. Man up and take the hit if you chose to accept the blame and leave the story as recorded in the report.

    The fact that Craig has sexual relations with men and is rabidly homophobic is another sad story altogether.
  • irishkcguy

    Posts: 780

    Jan 16, 2008 11:41 PM GMT
    Maybe I am a prude, but I don't want to watch Sen Craig have sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:44 PM GMT
    auryn, again -- it's not about sex -- it's about privacy.
    the ACLU doesn't condone people having sex in public restrooms, just like they don't condone white supremacist behavior -- but they will defend the right of a nazi skinhead to his free speech because they know that it's a slippery slope if we start whittling away at our civil rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:47 PM GMT
    irishkcguy saidMaybe I am a prude, but I don't want to watch Sen Craig have sex.


    This was never part of the equation, it's an emotional reaction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:53 PM GMT
    I am not sure where I stand on the ACLU's position on this. I am a big time supporter of the ACLU but I don't know enough about the specifics here.

    Did Larry Craig go into the cops stall or did the cop enter Larry Craig's stall? Sex in public bathrooms is completely unacceptable though, and it should definitely be stopped. Bathrooms are for taking care of business, why should I have to wait to use a stall because some people decide to fuck there or knit a sweatshirt, i mean come on. Cruising reflects so poorly on the gay community, and just reinforces the stereotype that gay men want nothing more than sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 16, 2008 11:58 PM GMT
    Auryn saidI have a reasonable expectation of privacy to eliminate yesterdays meal, when in a public restroom. If I want privacy, I can get a motel room or take the person home or to a private location, not have sex in a room where minors and people (of all sexual orientations) that don't want or need to participate in what I'm doing can hear or see.


    Is this to imply that when you are relieving yourself in the bathroom at the Mall that others may join you in your stall to watch you or to also relieve themselves in your commode?

    The point is expectation of privacy, not definition of private property. The court established that you do indeed have an expectation of privacy in a public bathroom stall.

    To further complement that, your argument that minors and other people of all orientations would be participating in the sexual intercourse within the stall decidedly thin. At the worst you may overhear some sounds and you may see feet. Unless the intercourse participants open the door or somehow manage to contort their bodies to expose genitalia under the stall door, then you're no more a participant to it than anyone else.

    I don't feel it's appropriate for loud intercourse noises to come from the commode such that they can be heard.

    That doesn't stop Billy Bob from laying one out with thunder and we don't arrest him for the loud flatulence. Nor does Jimmyjoe get arrested for a particularly fluid bomb run. Further, I have yet to see anyone get arrested for mephitic odor proliferation and trust me, if anyone should be arrested for anything occurring in the bathroom -- this should be at the top of the list.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2008 12:02 AM GMT
    hippie4lyfe saidDid Larry Craig go into the cops stall or did the cop enter Larry Craig's stall? Sex in public bathrooms is completely unacceptable though, and it should definitely be stopped. Bathrooms are for taking care of business, why should I have to wait to use a stall because some people decide to fuck there or knit a sweatshirt, i mean come on. Cruising reflects so poorly on the gay community, and just reinforces the stereotype that gay men want nothing more than sex.


    Neither. He [sat on the commode and] placed his foot somewhat under the wall separating the two and tapped. In some circles that is taken as an invitation to engage in sex.

    Cruising and bathroom sex occurs on both sides of the orientation fence and due to the hetero/homo ratio I rather believe that there is significantly more hetero sex and cruising than homo. One can hardly say that only homos are driven by sex.
  • auryn

    Posts: 2061

    Jan 17, 2008 12:04 AM GMT
    JohnnyFreestyle,

    Though I appreciate the fact that you are adamantly for equality, I disagree with what you are saying on this case.

    The intent of a door on a public restroom stall is to provide a sense of privacy to take a dump. We assume all other liberties that are not part of the intent. Does there have to be signs posted for us to understand which privacies are afforded to us in a public stall?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2008 12:06 AM GMT
    well then we'll at least agree that we disagree, auryn.

    for the record, though, i'm not making a case for equality by any means.

    i'm making a case for cops not arresting people for tapping their foot.
  • drakutis

    Posts: 586

    Jan 17, 2008 12:09 AM GMT
    Can a person go into a stall and smoke weed?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2008 12:12 AM GMT
    Auryn saidThe intent of a door on a public restroom stall is to provide a sense of privacy to take a dump. We assume all other liberties that are not part of the intent. Does there have to be signs posted for us to understand which privacies are afforded to us in a public stall?


    I have often used a stall to change clothing. I have used the stall to put a fresh bandage on my butt cheek after sitting on a chair and having a big nail penetrate me in a place I'd never considered before. I have used a stall to clean food off my jeans. I have used a stall to dry off my pants after someone spilled their drink on me. I have used a stall to remove ice cubes from my shorts after some tomfoolery. I have used a stall to escape from the monotonous droning of a "friend."

    And I've used a stall to pass unpleasant waste.

    I'm also quite certain that there is a big list of other things not related to sex or the act of relieving ones self that have occurred in a stall and we would never consider getting up in arms over them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2008 12:14 AM GMT
    drakutis saidCan a person go into a stall and smoke weed?


    Smoking weed in is a crime in most places regardless of privacy. One that I don't agree with mind you.

    People do smoke cigarettes in the stall. Particularly foreigners at airports.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 17, 2008 12:24 AM GMT
    Honestly if there is anything bathroom related that i think someone sould be arrested for it's those people that shit on the toilet seat.

    1 How the fuck do they miss?

    2 Haven't they ever heard of wiping the seat

    3 one could litterally get sick from those nasty toilet seats.

    Foot tapping and hand signals I don't get especially in that kind of setting but I also think the aclu is right and from the beginning never cared for larry craig but also never really understood what crime he actually committed.