Wilgrove
18-01-2008, 10:17
In Larry Craig’s Corner, the A.C.L.U.
The man who drew the attention of Minnesota airport police with his “wide stance” was the victim of a law that is “unconstitutionally overbroad,” the American Civil Liberties Union says.
As Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, pushes to withdraw his guilty plea following his arrest in a public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the rights group has strongly backed him in a brief filed with Minnesota Court of Appeals.
According to The Associated Press’s reading of the 12-page document, the A.C.L.U. argues that the police cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the senator was soliciting sex in the airport bathroom without violating privacy rights articulated in a 1970 Minnesota Supreme Court opinion.
To prove its privacy point, the brief even tries to turn the government’s sword on itself. “When it charged the defendant with interference with privacy,” — the offense to which the senator pleaded guilty — “it alleged that he had looked into a ‘place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy.’ ”
The A.C.L.U. goes as far as to argue that no laws would have been broken even if Senator Craig had been caught having sex in the stall. That didn’t happen, of course, and Mr. Craig has denied that he made any of the sexual advances alleged in the police report.
You can read the entire brief by downloading a pdf file, but this paragraph serves as an excellent summation of the ACLU’s logic:
Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.
Conservative Republicans like Mr. Craig make a habit of deriding and demonizing the civil-liberties union, but the A.C.L.U. has been as quick to defend the rights of people who hate the group as those who love it: it also filed a brief with the court last September, supporting Mr. Craig’s initial efforts to withdraw his guilty plea, and in recent years it has taken stands in support of Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and other opponents.
The group’s voice is far from the only one raised in Larry Craig’s defense. Back in August, when the story first broke, many bloggers were quick to disagree with the Minnesota police, with one wondering, “What Exactly Is the Crime?”
[ Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this post mistakenly said the St. Paul police arrested Senator Craig. In fact, the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport is patrolled by a separate airport police force. - Ed.]
Link (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/?hp)
Ok, so my question is, what is reasonable privacy? I mean lets face it, this happened in a Public Restroom where you're basically taking a crap or pissing in public and the only thing preventing people seeing that is metal dividers. My question is, What is reasonable privacy? Should he had enough privacy to take a dump or to pee, yes. Should he have had enough privacy to have gay sex in a bathroom stall? I say no.
The man who drew the attention of Minnesota airport police with his “wide stance” was the victim of a law that is “unconstitutionally overbroad,” the American Civil Liberties Union says.
As Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, pushes to withdraw his guilty plea following his arrest in a public restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the rights group has strongly backed him in a brief filed with Minnesota Court of Appeals.
According to The Associated Press’s reading of the 12-page document, the A.C.L.U. argues that the police cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the senator was soliciting sex in the airport bathroom without violating privacy rights articulated in a 1970 Minnesota Supreme Court opinion.
To prove its privacy point, the brief even tries to turn the government’s sword on itself. “When it charged the defendant with interference with privacy,” — the offense to which the senator pleaded guilty — “it alleged that he had looked into a ‘place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy.’ ”
The A.C.L.U. goes as far as to argue that no laws would have been broken even if Senator Craig had been caught having sex in the stall. That didn’t happen, of course, and Mr. Craig has denied that he made any of the sexual advances alleged in the police report.
You can read the entire brief by downloading a pdf file, but this paragraph serves as an excellent summation of the ACLU’s logic:
Sex is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Thus, the government may make sex a crime only where it has a constitutionally sufficient justification for doing so. The government does not have a constitutionally sufficient justification for making private sex a crime. It follows that an invitation to have private sex is constitutionally protected and may not be made a crime. This is so even where the proposition occurs in a public place, whether in a bar or in a restroom.
Conservative Republicans like Mr. Craig make a habit of deriding and demonizing the civil-liberties union, but the A.C.L.U. has been as quick to defend the rights of people who hate the group as those who love it: it also filed a brief with the court last September, supporting Mr. Craig’s initial efforts to withdraw his guilty plea, and in recent years it has taken stands in support of Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell and other opponents.
The group’s voice is far from the only one raised in Larry Craig’s defense. Back in August, when the story first broke, many bloggers were quick to disagree with the Minnesota police, with one wondering, “What Exactly Is the Crime?”
[ Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this post mistakenly said the St. Paul police arrested Senator Craig. In fact, the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport is patrolled by a separate airport police force. - Ed.]
Link (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/in-larry-craigs-corner-the-aclu/?hp)
Ok, so my question is, what is reasonable privacy? I mean lets face it, this happened in a Public Restroom where you're basically taking a crap or pissing in public and the only thing preventing people seeing that is metal dividers. My question is, What is reasonable privacy? Should he had enough privacy to take a dump or to pee, yes. Should he have had enough privacy to have gay sex in a bathroom stall? I say no.