Wednesday, January 16, 2008

ACLU Argues That Sex In Public Bathrooms Is Private Act

Now we know. 

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.

If there is an expectation of privacy, can you smoke in a bathroom stall too?  Or can you only smoke after sex?

(5) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0807 hrs
Culture + Law

  1. 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.

    That’s an oxymoron.  A “public” restroom is “public” because there isn’t an expectation of privacy.  Granted, stalls offer you discretion, but no reasonable person would walk into a public restroom and not know what you’re doing in a stall.

    So what does the ACLU want?  Do they want “Do not disturb” signs on public restroom doors?  Are we supposed to cross our legs while we wait for the couple in the restroom to do their thing?

    What a joke.

    Posted by Amy P. on January 16, 2008 at 1017 hrs


  2. They’re actually doing this as a jab against Craig, who has maintained that he was not soliciting anything.

    The gist of their “defense” of Craig is to say, “Yeah, he was asking the guy for quickie, but that should his my right.”  I don’t know if they’re trying to give Craig an easy out or what.  But from a publicity standpoint this defense isn’t really doing him any favors.

    If anything it’s more of a 1st Amendment issue IMHO.  Gesturing to someone in a public space that you want to get it on seems like pretty clear cut free speech to me.

    Posted by David on January 16, 2008 at 1126 hrs


  3. It’s an interesting question.  If there was no expectation of privacy in a bathroom, there would be no need for walls and doors separating one stall from the next.  Clearly, people who use such a facility have an expectation of at least some privacy.  That expectation cannot be absolute unless the space is completely enclosed, which is rarely the case in America.

    The question then is whether there are reasonable limits on that privacy.  Should we expect privacy for certain activities but not for others?  Probably not.  Privacy tends to be uniformly applied to all activities.  However, I think one can certainly argue that sex in a bathroom stall is likely an illegitimate use of a restroom facility, and can be regulated accordingly. 

    It’s sad to think that we might have to start passing laws or putting signs on bathrooms describing the kind of conduct that is okay or not okay, but at least it would make the matter clear and make any legal defense unambiguous.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 16, 2008 at 1143 hrs


  4. RS,

    We have states now realizing they have to pass laws against necrophila because its not on the books, and juries might start buying the “Twinie Defense.”  “Unambiguous” went out the door with common sense a few decades ago.

    Usually it’s caused by social moderates who call the right-wingers old fuddy duddies, demand that they need to get modern, are placating for a campaign issue and such.

    Sound familiar?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2008 at 1208 hrs


  5. It’s an interesting question.  If there was no expectation of privacy in a bathroom, there would be no need for walls and doors separating one stall from the next.  Clearly, people who use such a facility have an expectation of at least some privacy.

    Exactly the point I was going to make

    If anything it’s more of a 1st Amendment issue IMHO.  Gesturing to someone in a public space that you want to get it on seems like pretty clear cut free speech to me.

    I agree.

    So I can go to a bar, buy a chic to drink and ask her to go back to my place… That’s not illegal.

    But WHOA if you wave your hand under the bathroom stall you are committing a crime?  Get real.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 16, 2008 at 1223 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.