ACLU: Having sex in a public bathroom stall is private

Larry Craig is STILL trying to withdraw his guilty plea, and the ACLU, as always, has his back. The organization filed an amicus brief arguing that people who have sex in public bathroom stalls have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," based on an Minnesota Supreme Court ruling.

Comments

[onetime_77]

sweet, now I can email an old gf and tell her there wasn't anything to worry about!

[Searching]

so, does this mean he is admitting to trying to have sex in a bathroom stall? Or is it that he is trying to make this a non crime?

[Searching]

But I guess he could be trying to get his conviction overturned through the back door... yeah, thats right.. I said it.

[You're a Mean Drunk R2D2™]

Hmmm, if a bathroom stall is private, I know a few women who would like to exercise their freedom with me in a bathroom stall. :)

[Patty PV]

So now hookers can do business in bathrooms! I think Craig is just stalling . . .

[You're a Mean Drunk R2D2™]

Nah, Craig is guilty of nothing more then trying to smuggle sausages. :)

[the_Lil_Apricot_Haired_Girl]

its the ACLU doing its usual liberal best... so what they are telling me is.... having sex in public places, so long as you are "enclosed" is for me to have "reasonable expectation of privacy," so if a couple people want to get their freak on in any public forum they should just bring a blanket or a cardboard box and wrap themselves inside it?

[You're a Mean Drunk R2D2™]

Sounds like that is the case LAHG. Hmmmm Wanna come over to my cardboard box LAHG? ;)

[Mickey Mouse]

Not! That's all we need to take our kids to the public bathroom only to hear people squirm and grunt. That's what hotels and motels are for. If they can't afford that, then go in the fricken woods. *rolling eyes*

[Thunderson]

Wow. The ACLU once again proves just how absolutely worthless they've become.

[CJ]

The ACLU is mostly what is wrong with America today.

[Stifled Freedom]

A republican sure turned Libertarian in a hurry when it was his a$$ on the carpet. I'll bet he denounced the ACLU for years up until he needed them. And not that the ACLU has the best priorities. In fact, thier priorities are lousy.

[I eat boogers]

With the ever increasing intrusion into our homes, often against the constitution, bathrooms are our last domain of exercising freedom.

Give me three grunts.

Hip Hip....Uuuungh.
(Repeat three times).

[JewwellsP]

Thunderson, I couldn't agree with you more. If the ACLU is doing good for American's. They sure better get out & make it known. All I associate with the ACLU now days is stupid stance's like this.

Sounds to me like the ACLU is basing its position on settled law. Any of you bother to check out the MN supreme court case they cite?

[mike]

ok sickos if you want to have sex in a dirty bathroom stall with poop and urine all over the toliet be my guess screw the ACLU they are so stupid

[Vibiana]

Eeeeeewwwwwwwwww.

Just eeeeeewwwwwwwwww.

And I know lots of gay guys. But just eeeeewwwwwwwwwww.

[D]

This reminds me of a scene in Bad Santa that took place in the womens' Big & Tall Dept.

I see an episode of South Park using this as a story line!

[Marvin]

I love what the ACLU does normally, but this is just a ridiculous argument. What if you take your little kid to the bathroom and two dudes are log jamming each other in a stall? I don't call that privacy!

[monty]

The ACLU has Craig's back.Reminds me of a joke....
Q. How does an ACLU man fake an orgasm?

A. He spits on his boyfriend's back.

Hi Vib! The blog could REALLY use your wit.Why you been gone for so long.

[Vibiana]

monty: I miss you guys too, but a gal has to do some work at work. LOL

Oops! Darn Typepad isn't signing my posts.

Vibiana

[All Can Love Unhindered]

The case the ACLU is using is probably State v. Bryant, 287 Minn. 205, 177 N.W.2d 800 (1970).

In part, it reads, “It is understandable that a large department store would desire to eliminate a use of restrooms that would be revolting to most people who wished to use the facilities properly. There were, however, ways of eliminating such use of the facilities other than surreptitious surveillance. The store had known about the hole in the partition for some time before defendant was apprehended, but had not closed it. The store could have removed the doors if it saw fit, so that anyone using the facilities would have no expectation of privacy; or it could have posted signs warning anyone using the facilities that they were apt to be under surveillance. But once facilities are provided wherein those using them properly are assured of privacy, the store has no right to destroy that privacy without the consent, actual or implied, of one to whom it has been assured. In the very nature of things, in the process of protecting the innocent all search and seizure prohibitions inevitably afford protection to some guilty persons; but the rights of the innocent may not be sacrificed to apprehend the guilty.”

This covers bathrooms on airliners right? I’ll bet it covers fitting rooms in department stores, too. Oh, how about confessionals in churches? And the best one… Voting Booths!

[matter of fact]

Larry Craig is a disgrace to himself, his family, the State of Idaho, and the Senate.
He is a pervert. Why is he not removed from the Senate.. oops, I forgot about Bill Clinton and Barney Frank...

The ACLU is disgusting as well for defending this pevert... They are a terrorist organization enabled by the fools who are maasquerading as Judges!!

Little wonder, the Bible describes our society as Sodom and Gomorrah!

[ME]

Isnt the words privacy in public sort of any oxymoron? Does that mean sex in my car is legal? The ACLU defended some illegal aliens a few years back for being underpaid. Doesn't the "A" in ACLU stand for AMERICAN? I think the ACLU is just becoming an excuse for people.

[DKC]

Craig wasn't charged with having sex... that would supposedly occur between two consenting adults... he was charged with solicitation of a non-consenting adult.

[jpbikerfreak aka cartman]

So what would you all suppose we do, put cameras in bathrooms and have park rangers monitor them?

Of course there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom.

Culture change - this is just one of MANY, many things the ACLU is doing. the vast majority of the great things they do never make the news. they're happening every day, but you only hear about these types of stories.

And if being a "liberal" means defending constitutional rights, count me in. (though I retiain my fiscal "conservatism"). that's what the ACLU does. CIVIL LIBERTIES.

Not saying there is any constitutional right to sex in a bathroom, but we're working on it.

[Curmudgeon]

State v. Bryant is another travesty for logic. A public restroom or a changing room is, at best, a semi-private oasis in an otherwise public landscape. Generally, they do not afford full privacy, but enough privacy for their intended use –which, by design, is limited. They are usually not floor-to-ceiling enclosures and one cannot expect full privacy in such an obviously semi-private environment.

Bryant and the ACLU are saying the Constitution renders us powerless to rid our public restrooms, even our parks, of homosexual or even heterosexual activity.

Let’s hope a higher degree of sanity prevails in this round.

[jack]

Larry Flint said it best when he took his obscenity case to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"If the Constitution doesn't protect scum like me, it doesn't protect anybody."

The Supreme Court sided with Flint. Must have been a bunch of "activist judges".

Definition of an "activist judge"? Any who rule against the self-proclaimed neo-conservatives.

[jpbikerfreak aka cartman]

Ya, jack, or better yet, any judge who throws out any of the laws they pass for any reason.

who needs this whole "judicial branch" thing anyway?

[SM]

While some of the actions of the ACLU are certainly questionable, I believe the spirit of their organization is a good "check" to have in our system.

Every time I'm quick to jump on the ridiculousness of some ACLU lawsuit, I try to think of what things might be like if they weren't there.

I read about proposals as "extra taxes on adult entertainment businesses" and "banning truck nuts" and wonder how many of this silly types of laws would have gone through if it wasn't for the ACLU.

Just a thought.....

[South Park]

I see an episode of South Park using this as a story line!

yeah, let's see all you potty mouths stand in line..

[JewwellsP]

this is just one of MANY, many things the ACLU is doing. the vast majority of the great things they do never make the news. they're happening every day, but you only hear about these types of stories. jpbikerfreak aka cartman | Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM

See this is what I spoke of eariler, if the ACLU has any sense at all. They better get out there & perform some damage control.
Any good that the ACLU has done in the last ten years is unknown to most American's.

[Curmudgeon]

“Of course there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom.”
Posted by: jpbikerfreak aka cartman | Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Limited privacy for the limited, intended use of the convenience only. But when you reach into the neighboring stall, you’ve “gone public” to anyone who might be in there. I don’t see that as protected.

As I said earlier, these are not fully private facilities but a semi-private oasis in an otherwise public landscape. No reasonable expectation of full privacy should exist.

[JewwellsP]

From the ACLU website-The ACLU has been one of the nation's leading advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens, challenging unconstitutional laws and practices, countering the myths upon which many of these laws are based.

Compelling Jehovah's Witness children to salute the American flag against their religious beliefs was unconstitutional. ACLU won their case.
Convicting an anti-war protester of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket that bore the words, "*uck the draft," was unconstitutional. The government cannot prohibit speech just because it is "offensive."Although the Court upheld a statute used to convict a doctor who had performed an illegal abortion, it expanded the "life and health of the woman" concept to include "psychological well-being," thereby allowing more women to obtain legal "therapeutic" abortions.
A Nazi group wanted to march through a Chicago suburb, Skokie, where many Holocaust survivors lived. The ACLU's controversial challenge to the village's ban on the march was ultimately successful.
A city's ban on the ritual slaughter of animals as practiced by the Santeria religion was overturned as a violation of religious liberty since the city did permit such secular activities as hunting and fishing.
In this first gay rights victory, the Court invalidated a state constitutional amendment, passed by public referendum in Colorado, that prohibited the state and its municipalities from enacting gay rights laws.. Passed by the VOTERS mind you.
And many many more

[DaMone]

Nara downtown has the best restrooms in the city for banging your chick..... or doing a little blow.

[Some guy that disapproves of this noise]

Jeez, I can't even go to the bathroom if someone is in the stall next to me and now I may have to contend with tearoom trade?? I'm pretty Liberal, but the ACLU is out of their f*cking minds!

[Tim]

bathrooms sounds good to me, no place to lay and cuddle when you're done!!

[The Vice Cop that's gonna bust you!]

DaMone says:

"Nara downtown has the best restrooms in the city for banging your chick..... or doing a little blow."

Duly noted.........

[flying ninja]

I love bathroom sex, thanks ACLU

[Gitmo]

Does this mean pay toilets are a part of the prostitution problems?

[DaMone a.k.a. The Potty Room Porker]

DaMone says:

"Nara downtown has the best restrooms in the city for banging your chick..... or doing a little blow."

Duly noted.........

Vice cop - Ninja, please.

[duh]

Do you mean blow as in cocaine or blow as in penis???

[The Angry Conservative]

Jewwells:

The ACLU also defended virtual child pornography as legal because it's virtual and that there are no actual victims involved. Now, if you buy that, you're a sociopath.

The ACLU USED to be a good organization...until it got hijacked by moral relativists (or people of moral depravity..take your pick)....not unlike the Democrat Party on a national level.

Some of the people that they advocate for are among the most disgusting, vile, and scum of the this country. You can lambaste me by saying that is my opinion....but it's the opinion of a lot more people than you may recognize.

Fornicating in a bathroom stall in a public restroom is disgusting, immoral, and lewd. If you wanna be a Sodomite....be a Sodomite...just don't do it in public. There is something inherently sick and disgusting about the need for attention that is demanded by sexually defective people. They have every right to be sick, twisted freaks....just not in public.

Behavior like that has consequences...including legal.

[Molly]

Unbelievable. Why does someone else's sex life have to effect others? The person gives up their right to privacy once they invite someone else into the stall with them. Unbelievable.

[BF]

It was also the ACLU that was fighting to allow Fred Phelps to still be allowed to picket at funerals.

They are screwed in the head and totally lost touch with reality.

[bill]

"The ACLU also defended virtual child pornography as legal because it's virtual and that there are no actual victims involved. Now, if you buy that, you're a sociopath."

I can see where it's coming from. What if someone's jerking off to a picture of the Gerber baby online? That's pretty weird to me, but illegal?

What if someone who was abused as a child paints a disturbing (and utterly unarousing to most of us) painting of his abused self and posts it online. Illegal?

There's a lot of sick nasty stuff out there, but when it's victimless sick nasty stuff, should it be illegal?

I'm not going to say it shouldn't necessarily be illegal, but I'm also going to state that we should give some thought to these sorts of laws rather than just giving the kneejerk "ewww!" reaction.

I'm glad the ACLU is out there. We have an adversarial court system in which laws are interpreted, and if we didn't have them out there asking hard, uncomfortable, unpopular questions, we'd stand the chance of losing many of our freedoms by default.

I like that they don't play favorites -- whether it be defending a racist bigot's right to free speech, a perv's right not to have his thoughts criminalized, or a devout Christian's right to worship as she sees fit, the ACLU's going to be there.

[Larry]

"The ACLU USED to be a good organization...until it got hijacked by moral relativists (or people of moral depravity..take your pick)....not unlike the Democrat Party on a national level."

Right-o. That sicko Larry Craig. Don't forget Representatives Foley and Ney and Senator Vitter.

Oh, wait, those guys are Republicans, not Democrats!

Some background reading for your pleasure!

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html

and here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2165783/

and here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/08/AR2006110800623.html

[The Angry Conservative]

Bill:

Oh come on. Do I even have to explain why the court case and your Gerber example are not remotely the same thing?

Allow me phrase it another way....Hinckley shooting Reagan (allegedly) b/c Jodie Foster allegedly told him to. Do I blame Ms. Foster for that? No...as it should be.

But a computer representation of what is undoubtedly a sick act....and exposing it to people that very well might do said act....do you really think it should be considered ethical or legal to disseminate that kind of a product?

There is nothing pornographic about a picture of a baby's head. Zero. Nil.

If you're one of those people that refuses to pass moral judgment....well....there is most definitely good and evil in this world...whether you're cognizant of it or not....and there is NOTHING redeeming about that activity. It reflects a mindset that should NEVER be encouraged.

Just take that last paragraph...I DARE you to tell me that I'm wrong...and why. Don't use any half-a$$ examples....just tell me it's wrong. Tell me it's OK for a US business to sell simulated child porn because there's no actual victim.

If you can? Silently or not....you need to get your head examined.

Larry:

I know you were chomping at the bit to reply to that, slappy, but perhaps you should read what I said...rather than what you THINK I said.

I did NOT say the following....

"No Republican has ever engaged in an improper sexual act".

I'll repeat what I did say....

"The ACLU USED to be a good organization...until it got hijacked by moral relativists (or people of moral depravity..take your pick)....not unlike the Democrat Party on a national level."

And on that note, I have two words for YOU, slick...Gerry Studds. He had a DOCUMENTED sexual relationship (or relationships) with non-adult pages. Mr. Foley, despite being what he is, has not been convicted or even charged with any of that. Mr. Studds REMAINED in office and was actually re-elected several times AFTER this stuff came out...says more about those voters than I can.....which leads to...

And let's not forget Teddy Kennedy (Mary Jo Copechne is unavailable for comment) and his notorious reputation.

And then you have Bill Clinton getting a Lewinsky and then lying about it UNDER OATH....and actively encouraging someone to file a false statement to the court saying the same lie...

As far as Ney goes, members of BOTH political parties were involved w/ Abramoff and corruption happens in both parties I know (I just have to giggle when Pelosi and Reid say otherwise when they're both just as bad about it THEMSELVES)

I did not nor will I defend what Craig or Vitter did. It's just really cute how GOP'ers are treated when it happens to them and how it DOESN'T go down when a Dem gets snagged. You're lucky to see his party affiliation mentioned in the story. I know one reason for this is that the GOP trumpets morality as one of their tenets. You may have noticed what happened when the story broke for the GOP peeps...they generally quit. Right away. (I know Craig waffled...but still). If the behavior is wrong...it's wrong...it's just interesting how the Dems can't hold themselves to the same standard they hold the GOP to.

Which leads to my final point....WaPo, Slate, and Salon are all far left rags/sites and are nothing approaching unbiased. If you think otherwise, you're naive of biased yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

""The ACLU USED to be a good organization...until it got hijacked by moral relativists (or people of moral depravity..take your pick)....not unlike the Democrat Party on a national level.""

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that, in order to come up with the witty retort, the "Angry Conservative" has to go back more than two decades to find one person, apparently as some sort of counterexample to demonstrate how the Democratic party rather than the Republican party is in fact the party of moral depravity.

Me, I'm just paying attention to what's been going on the past 5-10 years, and while I'm sure the Democrats don't have a perfect track record, the guys running around like a bunch of binging frat boys are the Republicans.

No wonder you're an Angry Conservative. I would be too, because these guys have sold your vote up the river! The 2008 election is going to hurt for you even more than 2006, I'm sure.