ACLU: Craig's foot tapping is constitutionally protected.

[AtomicKitten]

:wtf:

Craig's foot taps are 'constitutionally protected,' ACLU says
Nick Juliano
Published: Monday September 17, 2007



One of the nation's oldest advocates of civil rights has come to the defense of alleged bathroom-sex-soliciting Sen. Larry Craig, saying his foot tapping and hand waving in an airport restroom do not provide enough evidence that he was going to engage in sexual activity in public.

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Minneapolis airport police sting aimed at preventing public sex in its restrooms. The ACLU filed a "friend of the court" brief Monday arguing that Craig should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge and fight the case because police failed to prove he attempted to engage in sexual activity in public.

"Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment," said a news release from the ACLU. "When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be 'carefully crafted' so that they don’t unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech."

* snip *

Although Craig has "not always been a great friend of civil liberties," he deserves the same constitutional protections as every other citizen, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said.

"Government should make public restrooms safe for all, but it should do so in a manner that is really designed to stop inappropriate behavior, rather than destroying the lives of people who might have no intention of doing anything illegal," Romero said in the news release.

The ACLU pointed to a Justice Department guide on policing public places to prevent sexual activity that recommended posted signs and uniformed officers as opposed to undercover stings.

* snip *

"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," Romero said. "It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people."

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Craigs_foot_taps_are_constitutionally_protected_0917.html

[Squatch]

1. Freepers' heads exploding

Their arch-nemesis coming to the rescue of one of their own.

[MH1]

86. It's great, isn't it?

:rofl:

[wicket]

93. Just like when they defended Rush!

:rofl:

[On the Road]

2. I Love It When the ACLU Defends People

who hate it.

[Deja Q]

3. So his foot tapping wasn't sexual harassment, then?

Oh dear...

Somebody get the popcorn, I'll get the soda. :9

:popcorn:

[yardwork]

6. Seriously, how do you figure that foot-tapping is sexual harassment?

Most people didn't even know what foot-tapping meant until this story broke, and anyone who did know, and wasn't interested, could have just ignored it.

Sexual harassment is when your boss's boss comes up to you and puts his arm around you and pulls you in close for a tight hug while you're talking with your boss. Sexual harassment is when your boss praises your "bedroom eyes" during a staff meeting. Believe me, I've experienced sexual harassment, and foot-tapping ain't it.

Sheesh. If most men had to experience the sexual harassment that most women experience in any given week....

[Kagemusha]

10. I wasn't aware Craig pled guilty to sexual harassment.

I'm no expert on the laws in question but, I'm pretty sure sexual harassment per se, wasn't the issue.

Hey, if the ACLU wants to challenge the whole law, and establish that all solicitation of sex is protected in public places, it can go about that... but this arguing about "process" and "entrapment" is totally besides the point. Either it's OK to make illegal what Craig did or it's not. If it's not OK to make it illegal, he could have done far more open behavior and it would be constitutionally protected. But I guess that makes a less compelling press release....

[Flarney]

20. I thought he was also looking into the stall through the crack by the door...

...for like a minute or something like that. Is that considered "peeping," or some kind of misdemeanor, whatever it's called?

[Maraya1969]

27. I think the peeping thing is much worse than the tapping thing. If someone

was staring into my stall I'd be very uncomfortable. I'd think they were a freak or a person who wanted to mug me or hurt me somehow.

[emlev]

30. Freeper, tapper, peeper, crapper...

Let's call the whole thing off!

[flying_wahini]

100. good one!

[emlev]

102. Thanks. I enjoyed it, too. n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

36. The problem here is that the ACLU is taking just one aspect of the case.

And that is wrong. There was a list of at least three things that Craig did to established a foundation for a crime. One of them being that he confessed, another that he threw in his title as legislator in to see if it would make a difference. Make that at least four things.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. I am so glad you are not practicing law.

The crime he was charged with had nothing to do with any of your asserted facts above.

[The Backlash Cometh]

77. Explain to me how they can make a defense on this case, by

exclusively arguing the foot tapping, and eliminating all the other elements of the case? How is that possible? How do they throw out the confession?

[Warren Stupidity]

80. You have made up the ACLU's argument for them.

You've seized on the headline as the only content of their argument. They appear to be arguing that one adult can communicate with another adult, even in a public bathroom, and the communication can be about sex, without that being a crime. If there is no evidence that Craig intended to engage in public sex, for example by stating to the officer 'let's have sex here in this stall', then perhaps there is no crime. That argument appears to have some merit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

83. You aren't listening.

He was peeping in stalls. He tapped his foot. He touched the other man's foot. He slithered his hand on the bottom of the stall. He gave a confession AFTER he was Mirandized. He mentioned his job as a legislature as if that would make a difference.

Is this a trial by jury? Do you really believe this is just about foot tapping? You have to look at all the evidence. There were a number of things that he did, on his own, which is consistent with the kind of solicitation for sex that is illegal in public bathrooms. And why is this a problem? Because people should not be looking in stalls, nor should there be any unwarranted physical contact, like foot touching, nor salacious gestures like waving a hand under the stall. That's improper communication.

[Hepburn]

95. What confession?

:shrug:

[Cobalt-60]

46. It must be the tune you're tapping

There could be a separate recognition sequence for every fetish.
Or perhaps it's a popular song. That puts the expression "a toe tapper" into whole new light.
Or perhaps it's plain old Morse Code!

[The Backlash Cometh]

84. Morse Code would be clever.

[HughMoran]

89. Just don't tap my foot or anybody I am responsible for and we're all set

I do think it is a form of harassment meant to elicit a response leading to sex. I find it may fit into an expanded definition of sexual harassment.

[MrCoffee]

7. of course it wasn't sexual harassment

and i'm not sure how it could be construed to be so.

[orleans]

47. what about foot rubbing? remember he agreed that their feet "bumped"

and i thought the cop said he was rubbing his foot up against the foot of the cop. is being a personal space invader by playing footsie w/strangers also part of MY free speech rights?

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Craig and the cop played footsie.

As the saying goes 'it takes two to tango'. You stallophobes sometimes admit that the cop played along, usually when arguing that a sting like this is not entrapment, and then just forget that part when desperately to find some actual criminal behavior here.

[MrCoffee]

4. go on with your bad selves, ACLU

i love it.

[AtomicKitten]

23. me too

cheers

[thereismore]

5. Of course it is. What, I can't tap foot in a public place? C'mon! nt

[Richard Steele]

8. Sorry, the police don't need to "prove" anything after he's PLEAD GUILTY to it. nm

[MrCoffee]

11. the police might have some explainin' to do

if i understand correctly, Craig's filed a motion to withdraw his plea and proceed to trial. The ACLU filed an amicus brief arguing that the orignial arrest was unconstitutional

[yardwork]

12. I doubt that Craig's motion will be successful, but I agree with the ACLU

If Craig weren't a coward to begin with, he would have fought the charges and probably won. The MN airport police weren't looking to wreck anyone's career. They wanted the public sex to go away from their bathroom. They do this by running a sting operation that embarrasses enough people so that they choose another place to get together.

Craig wimped out. He took the coward's route.

[Richard Steele]

14. That's not a motion that gets granted automatically, or granted OFTEN.

"I changed my mind" is -not- sufficient grounds to withdraw
a guilty plea.
Craig will have to show that he was either COERCED into that
plea, or incompetent to make any plea at all.

Which isn't to say I'm not ENJOYING his foolish refusal to go away quietly.
The longer he keeps grabbing media attention, the better, IMHO.

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Unless the law allows one to withdraw such a plea.

Which the ACLU seems to think it does. Then the facts do matter.

[Toucano]

9. I don't think he disturbed the peace with his actions

Nor did he do anything lewd.

BUT - he did plea guilty to disturbing the peace. Why?

Because he would have committed a lewd act if the officer had responded favorably. No doubt in my mind.

Why such a hurry to make it "go away" if he's not a potty troll?

[yardwork]

13. Exactly. He's out of options now.

Suppose that Craig weren't a hypocrite, but was open and forthright about his sexual desires. Suppose he openly admitted that he likes to have anonymous sex with other men in public bathrooms. Then he wouldn't have had to worry about being arrested for foot-tapping. He could have taken this to court and I guarantee that the airport police would have backed down.

Trouble is, Craig made his reputation as a Republican senator who said a lot of intolerant things about other people's sex lives, to the extent that admitting that he personally gets turned on by the smell of public restrooms is just out of the question. Craig made his bed. Now he's gonna lie in it.

[Toucano]

15. And his fairly rapid resignation further solidifies the fact the he knows

he's a potty troll and is consumed by guilt.

I'm not quite sure how Spector convinced him to fight, though. That's just weird.

[yardwork]

17. I don't know that he's consumed by guilt....

As a Republican, he's probably incapable of guilt. He's probably just worried because he got caught and now he might lose his cushy job flying around the country on the tax-payers' dime nagging other people about their sex lives.

[BushOut06]

16. Is it a lewd act if they agree to go somewhere else?

I don't know if it was this case, or the rethug down in Florida, where the rethug wanted to go somewhere else private and engage in sexual acts. In that case, would it still be considered a 'lewd act'?

[L. Coyote]

19. He told the police he had a plane to catch. He was not looking for a motel job!

[Toucano]

22. To me, that would not constitute lewd conduct.

I bet it depends on the jurisdiction.

[Matariki]

18. Even if he was cruising the bathroom - it doesn't prove he was going to have public sex.

He could have taken that nice looking cop back to his hotel room. No law against that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Haven't We Litigated That

You are free to ask for sex anyhwhere you want...

You are not free to intrude on another person's privacy when they go into a restroom stall and close the door by peering through the crack where the door meets the stall...

[Eric J in MN]

26. You aren't free to have sex in public. NT

NT

[babylonsister]

29. Except in Thailand. But I digress. This could go the way of the boob.

What's "OK"? I don't much care about boobs, but I don't want to see anyone having sex in public-really.

[Quixote1818]

24. ACLU is 100% correct on this. NT

[Skittles]

38. I am inclined to agree. NT

[Eric J in MN]

25. I disagree with the ACLU about this.

There are some public places where people shouldn't be having sex, and to say that they have to catch someone in the act would make prosecution too difficult.

[Bluebear]

33. And i am very serious about this question - you want to prosecute intent?

'to say that they have to catch someone in the act would make prosecution too difficult.'

And I agree this is not a place to have sex, but what line of intent would he have to cross for you to consider him guilty?

[Eric J in MN]

109. If he wanted to find someone to go to a hotel room with him,

...he wouldn't have chosen the stall of a men's room.

He would have tried to flirt with men at the airport bar or something.

I'm convinced that the Senator was trying to have sex in a public bathroom.

[Skittles]

39. read it again

The ACLU is not saying there is a right to have sex everywhere - the question is, how could it be proved the person INTENDED to have sex?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. He Wasn't Arrested For Trying To Have Sex

He was arrested for peering through a crack in a closed bathroom stall while somebody was on the crapper... My neighbor's bathroom window is about eight feet from my property line...If I was to get a small box, stand on it, and peer into my neighbor's bathroom, and she called the police and they arrived while I was caught doing that I suspect I would get put in the hoosegow...

[Warren Stupidity]

71. Really?

It is difficult to catch people having sex in public? How could that possibly be difficult?

[Eric J in MN]

108. If they're in the stall of a public bathroom for example. NT

NT

[babylonsister]

28. I love the ACLU for defending, but why did he plead guilty? nt

[Lasher]

37. He pled guilty to keep a low profile, hoping no one would find out.

It almost worked, too.

Also there was that thing about copping a plea to a lesser crime.

[Skittles]

40. in other words, because he is one dumb SOB

he should have shut the fuck up and gotten a lawyer

[Lasher]

42. He might have consulted with a lawyer

He had a couple of weeks to think it over anyway.

[Skittles]

45. if he did I doubt he followed his lawyer's advice

I cannot imagine a lawyer would advise him to plead guity. When he was arrested he should not have said one word to the cops and immediately consulted a lawyer.

[murloc]

31. oh please. He wasnt arrested for foot taping

He was arrested for trying to have sex in public.

[Bluebear]

34. There is no crime as "trying to have sex", though, right?

[Skittles]

41. correct

there is no crime in trying to get lucky.....I wondered, how do they know Mr. Craig, once he got a "hit", wasn't going to arrange a hotel rendezvous? I mean I doubt that was the case but it COULD have been.

[Bluebear]

43. If every man, gay or straight, was arrested for "trying to have sex"...

...well, let's just the nation's testosterone would be neatly enclosed in prisons all across America.

[Skittles]

55. absolutely

no doubt about it :D

[murloc]

49. you left off the "in public" part

And that is certainly a crime.

There is certainly no crime in trying to meet someone to have sex with in private place somewhere.

But of course no one really believes that this is what Craig was trying to do. The evidence suggests, and Craig pleaded guilty to attempting to have sex in a public place.

Fact is Craig was trying to score a sexual favor in a public restroom stall, and he rightfully got busted for it.

[Bluebear]

50. Define "trying to have sex in public" vs "having sex in public".

You claim the former is a crime?

[murloc]

51. Same concept used to bust Johns

A guy walks up to a hooker and arranges to have sex for money. If a cop witnesses it (or more likely the "hooker" is a cop), he's going to jail.

Sex need not actually take place.

FWIW, there are many many crimes where intent is punished when it can be proven, without the actual deed taking place (regardless of whether is murder, theft, bribery, public sex, prostitution or whatever)

[Bluebear]

53. Solicitation for money is illegal. "Trying to have sex" is not illegal.

[murloc]

56. Who is talking about "trying to have sex" ???

Seriously - who is arguing that trying to have sex is illegal? I like to see that thread.

We're talking about trying to have PUBLIC-SEX.

Apparently its illegal, at least in that particular locality.. Craig got busted for it. He pleaded guilty and his career is in shambles.

And I'm ok with that.

[Bluebear]

57. And again, what is "trying to have public sex"?

Craig did not plead guilty to any such thing!

[murloc]

61. What is the point of this conversation?

Craig admitted his wrong doing.

Craig has the opportunity to plead innocent and have his day in court in front of a judge and jury, yet he instead admitted to his wrong doing.

He was charged with disorderly conduct.

Naturally that covers a wide variety of mis-conduct.

In the opinion of the charging officer, arranging to have sex in a public bathroom falls into the broad category of disorderly conduct. So is leering into a bathroom stall for an extended period of time.

And frankly I think he is right.

If you are suggesting that Craig was arranging for a later hookup, but by using signals indicating that he wanted public bathroom sex, in a location noted for bathroom sex, and has been reported to police as a place where public bathroom sex takes place, well I'm sorry, I don't believe it.

But to answer your question. "What is trying to have public sex?".
The answer is simple. It is attempting to solicit someone to have public sex with you. And when done in the manner that Craig did it..its disorderly conduct.

Craig is guilty as charged....and I'm ok with that.

[Bluebear]

62. Well then leave the conversation if you're not enjoying it, I'll live :)

I don't think that Craig SHOULD have the opportunity to withdraw the plea. I agree that leering into a bathroom stall for an extended period of time is arrestable. I agree with everything you are saying except the nomenclature of being arrested "for trying to have sex". That charge is far too broad and far too dangerous to have on the books. The other actions you describe were actionable and I am OK with that too, I just would hate to see law enforcement start reading minds and accusing people of trying to have sex where no intent was there. Good?

[murloc]

63. Well don't get hung up on my words

My command of the language isn't good enough for that kind of scrutiny :) Fortunately I'm not a lawyer and no one in the legal system will pay attention to my posting :)

FWIW, I do agree that "disorderly conduct" is a BROAD catch all. Police use it all the time to arrest for behavior that is "wrong" but not quite on the books.

I suppose thats what judges and jury's are for. I suspect that with good representation and a fair jury (doesn't always happen), that he would have had a fair chance of being acquitted.

[Bluebear]

64. Bottom line, the idiot got caught and pled guilty.

Too bad, so sad. Karma for all his votes against gay rights.

Cheers! :toast:

[electron_blue]

97. Yes there is. "Solicitation" is illegal, which is what the Senator was arrested for and what

he plead guilty to. I imagine the 2 minute peep show and what he did with his hands during that time figures into this somehow.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. disorderly conduct is what he was arrested for.

Other than that, you have a valid point.

[libodem]

32. I really hate entrapment

I think it's a dirty deal. The same thing goes for drugs. Prostitution. We are getting into victim-less crimes, for the most part. The government should butt out. Craig is the type of guy wants the government to crawl up your ass and spy in your bedroom. His kind makes sex dirty, makes sex a crime. We need to flat start decriminalizing a lot of human behavior. Leave people the fuck alone. Quit trying to make money off of Vice. Makes it dirty money as far as I'm concerned. Usually punishes the poorest and most desperate in society. This time a big wig got caught in it's own dirty filthy trap.

[The Backlash Cometh]

35. Where does the ACLU stand in a child's right to go into a public bathroom

and use the facilities for the intended purpose without having to be exposed to grown men's freedom of expression?

[Bluebear]

44. Supposition of facts not in evidence.

Just sayin'.

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. In Craig's case there were at least four such facts.

One of which was a confession. Why would the ACLU take on only one piece of evidence? It's silly. Craig did more than tap his feet.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. The ACLU seems to be arguing

that there is no evidence that Craig was going to engage in public sex. They seem to have a point.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

60. The ACLU is concerned

With what *government* does to the individual.

Not what individuals do to each other.

[The Backlash Cometh]

67. And that is the ACLU's weakness.

This Craig case is not a good case to enter into on this subject because there were so many other signals. So, the ACLU, if it succeeds, will just make public bathrooms more dangerous for unaccompanied minors. And this kind of interference, is why people don't always jump in to support them.

[Warren Stupidity]

79. The ACLU rarely cares if a particular case 'is a good case' based

on your criteria. Instead they seem more concerned about the constitutional issues.

Once again, tossing in the bloody shirt of 'what about the children' is a dishonest tactic as there were no children involved in this incident. Try sticking to the actual facts rather than fictional ones.

[The Backlash Cometh]

96. It's a public bathroom. Ergo, children will be a factor, whether you like it or not.

The question will inevitably be one person's right versus another. And since children are still considered members of the public, the argument will be, if our society has deemed it necessary to shield children of certain sexual behaviors, even when it comes to viewing movies, why wouldn't it be appropriate to shield them viewing the same behavior in public bathrooms?

Of course, you could always make this point moot if you allow mothers or other women to accompany their children into male public bathrooms up to the age of 17 for the boys? I suspect if men never knew exactly when a mother would enter into the bathroom, things would change drastically.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. There are separate laws covering sexual predation on children.

Craig was not engaged in pedophilia. You have raised a false and inflammatory issue.

[The Backlash Cometh]

76. Who said anything about pedophilia?

This case involves far more than foot tapping. As much as the ACLU would like you to believe.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. You did.

"Where does the ACLU stand in a child's right to go into a public bathroom
and use the facilities for the intended purpose without having to be exposed to grown men's freedom of expression?"

As I said, there are separate laws regarding sexual predation on children.

[The Backlash Cometh]

90. Show me exactly where I wrote that the child would be the target of

the behavior between grown men?

I'll help you. You won't find it. I meant exactly what I wrote. This particular bathroom was written up on the internet. Gay men were writing about successful experiences they had in that airport, and possibly in that bathroom. One of them mentioned finding someone masturbating in an open urinal, and sharing the urinal to masturbate alongside of them.

Why should a child be subjected to this "exposure," when he enters a bathroom? Even if he's in a stall he should not be subjected to someone looking in through the crack of the bathroom door from someone who is looking for a willing adult partner? Or why should he be subjected to noises in the stall next door and two sets of feet which will give him a host of questions which his mother hoped she wouldn't have to deal with for several more years.

Now do you understand? It's not about pedophilia, per se. It's about keeping public bathrooms safe for its intended purposes for all members of the public.

[Warren Stupidity]

103. It's called 'waving the bloody shirt'.

First you wave the shirt, then you deny the obvious meaning of your act. It is a fine rhetorical technique, dating back to, according to W. Shakespeare, Mark Antony's speech on the occasion of the death of the tyrant J Caesar.

Always works as intended.

[Puglover]

82. Ah when all else fails

be sure to remind us to THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!

[BlooInBloo]

48. LOL!!! This is now a win-win! If Craig loses, well, Craig loses...

... if Craig wins, then we have high-profile proof of how valuable the ACLU is, and how fair & justice-minded liberalism is.

Either way, we win.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

52. Go ACLU

This is positively brilliant.

So, here is what is proven absolutely, without a scintilla of reasonable doubt. He either lied in court (pled guilty) or is willing to lie in court (not guilty).

The question becomes, were you lying then, or lying now? His story is, he lied to make it go away.

Hoisted by his own petard.

[PDenton]

54. shame on ACLU

... we were all enjoying watching this trainwreck until you goody goodies come along and ruin everything. Can't we have a Gomez moment for once without hearing from some advocacy group?

[Bluebear]

58. "Shame on ACLU"

:eyes:

[Swamp Rat]

72. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Damn them for defending our rights!

How dare they!

[Nutmegger]

59. The stupid bastard should have challenged the arrest.

But he's a hypocritical, pro-family, anti-gay Republican bastard so he wanted to sweep it under the rug so people don't find out about "teh gay".

Too late now Craig.

[unblock]

66. the gov't will have to show he was soliciting *public* sex, not private sex

which might seem to be a challenge to distinguish from nonverbal codes such as foot-trapping.

from a political perspective, i'm thrilled that this might linger in the news for years....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. The ACLU Has Set Up A Strawman

He was arrested and charged with "disorderly conduct" and "interference with privacy"... He pled guilty to the former charge to make the more inflammatory latter charge go away...

The "interference with privacy" charge stems from Mr. Craig's peering through a crack in an occupied bathroom stall door for one to two minutes...The right to privacy emanates from natural law, became part of common law, and was codified in Minnesota statutes...

[unblock]

107. i don't know enough of the sequence, but if the cop responded to the "foot tapping"...

if the prosecution argues that the foot tapping was a signal for sex, perhaps the defense could argue that whatever the cop's response was (presumably foot tapping back) amounted to consent to peer into his stall.

i'm not clear on the sequence of events.

[electron_blue]

99. Well, seeing as how he was in a public bathroom, I'd say the case is already made

I agree with you that this will be interesting if it lingers in the news for awhile. I'm sure this is not the image the Rep's want out there - their own Senators defending the right to solicit sex in a public bathroom in a very large airport. Even if he was searching for private sex (a BIG if), this is still not something most republicans want in the news every day.

[Swamp Rat]

75. :-)

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[gollygee]

85. I agree with them, and I'm a mom

1. There is no way to know if he was planning on having sex there or getting the guy to go somewhere else. Having sex somewhere else, if it was private, would be totally legal.

2. There is no reason to believe they would have had sex in front of children because of #1.

3. He looked through the guy's stall and as I remember the guy was still completely dressed and was looking back at him. If they guy had been actually using the facilities as intended, I doubt he would have continued looking. There is no reason to assume he would have. If the cop was dressed, didn't look like he intended to use the facilities, and was looking back at him, it was reasonable for him to assume he was interested and continue looking.

4. I have yet to hear from anyone who has seen gay men have sex in a bathroom or whose kids have. And I read several parenting forums. This has never come up. If gay men are having sex in bathrooms, they are incredibly sneaky about it, probably for that specific reason. Unless I hear about some rash of gay men having sex in front of kids in restrooms, I am not going to worry about this. I don't worry about things that aren't happening.

5. There is nothing illegal about tapping your foot. If the cop hadn't tapped back or whatever signal is generally used, it would have stopped there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. I'll Play

1) Once Mr. Craig looked peered through a crack in a closed bathroom stall he had violated Minnesota's "interference with privacy" statute... It matters not whether his entreaty was welcome or not... He doesn't have the right under law to look and then decide, not even for a second...

2) When I was thirteen I was urinating in a DeLand, Florida restroom and this sixtieish year old man stood by the urinal next to me and said "would you like to feel the juices?"...

3) Back in the 80's I was at a department store in the Altamonte Mall in Altamonte Springs, Florida and saw two men coming out of the same stall with one one of the men wiping his mouth ...

[gollygee]

98. OK

1. People look to see if stalls are occupied all the time. Maybe he was looking to simply see if the stall was occupied, and then when someone was completely dressed, not using the restroom for its intended purpose, and looking back at him, he decided he was interested but not until that point. Other potential scenario is that this whole foot-tapping signal thing happened before the stall peering, in which case it could be argued that the cop invited the peering through the signaling.

2. That is irrelevant and the fact that you would use a case of attempted pedophilia as an example about a situation where pedophilia is not suspected or suggested is pretty telling.

3. If someone had entered the restroom while the two men were sexually involved, it's very likely they would have stopped because someone else was in the restroom. You didn't actually see anyone have sex.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. You Really Should Have Quit While You Were Behind

And not embarrass yourself with innuendo:


Let me deal with your innuendo first:

" I have yet to hear from anyone who has seen gay men have sex in a bathroom or whose kids have. And I read several parenting forums. This has never come up. If gay men are having sex in bathrooms, they are incredibly sneaky about it, probably for that specific reason. Unless I hear about some rash of gay men having sex in front of kids in restrooms, I am not going to worry about this. I don't worry about things that aren't happening."

-gollygee

I merely responded that I have been propositioned in a public restroom when I was thirteen years old and that I have seen two adults having sex in a public restroom... You don't know anything about me and your ad hominem attack wrapped in innuendo reveals more about you than it could ever reveal about me.

When you look to see if a stall is occupied it is customary to look at the space between the bottom of the stall and where the door ends, not the space between where the door meets the stall divider;by looking in the former you will most likely see somebody's foot, by looking in the latter you will most likely see somebody's crotch..

Game

Set

Match

[auburngrad82]

92. So I guess this guy can use the freedom of speech argument as well.

http://wonkette.com/politics/cummertime-blues-dept'/creepy-state-rep-brings-endless-cummer-magic-to-nc-278203.php

That is, if the ACLU will argue that wagging your dick and yelling "Suck it!" is a form of freedom of speech.



Liberal bumper stickers

[Warren Stupidity]

105. That would probably not work.

However if your were trying to drain the last drops of piss out while answering a question about what one does with a lollypop it might actually be accurate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. THe ACLU Is Conflating A Factual Question With A Legal Question

1) He wasn't charged with soliciting. IMHO , you should be free to ask for sex anywhere you want but I think any sentient person would realize certain venues make propositions of that nature unwise and potentially dangerous .

2) He was charged with "disorderly conduct" and "interference with privacy". He pled guilty to the former charge to make the more inflammatory latter charge go away.

3) As a matter of law , Minnesota's "interference with privacy" statute would be upheld in any court, at any level, in any jurisdiction in the United States.

4) There is a factual question. Either Craig is lying or the policeman is lying. If the policeman's account is truthful and Craig peered through a crack in a closed bathroom stall for one to two minutes while it was being occupied then that's a prima facie violation of Minnesota's "interference with privacy" statute.

[scarletwoman]

104. For the record, I agree with the ACLU. (nt)