ACLU hits a new low...ACLU: Sex in Restroom Stalls Is Private...

[dr. fill]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Like Craig's fundamental constitutional right to tap the officer's foot in the next stall and peek under the stall's divider?

The foot-tapping is a form of communication and is therefore covered by the 1st Amendment. Seriously. There's probably something somewhere in the Constitution that can be spun around until peeking under a stalls divider comes out as a right. Maybe something to do with access to information. Not seriously.

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from chuck.ells:

Perhaps you ought to read the opening post on this thread? Pay particular attention to how the first paragraph is framed.

The opening paragraph indicates the ACLU's position. I'm enquiring about an aspect of the police position not addressed in that paragraph.

 

[chuck.ells]

Quote from dr. fill:

The opening paragraph indicates the ACLU's position. I'm enquiring about an aspect of the police position not addressed in that paragraph.

No, you missed it.
The first paragraph suggest the right to have sex in a public bathroom.
The ACLU suggest the right to privacy in a public bathroom.

These are very different things.

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from chuck.ells:

No, you missed it.
The first paragraph suggest the right to have sex in a public bathroom.
The ACLU suggest the right to privacy in a public bathroom.

These are very different things.

They're both different from what I was addressing in my question to Turok. I wanted to know if Turok had read or heard somewhere that the police want to challenge the validity of the precedent that established expecation of privavcy in a public washroom stall.


The opening line "In an effort to help Sen Larry Craig, the ACLU is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy." is a misinterpretation of the ACLU argument. The ACLU is arguing that people who have sex in stalls in a public washroom have an expectation of privacy. In this the ACLU is correct until proven wrong since there is a legal precedent supporting their argument.

No one is arguing that anybody has the right to have sex in a public washroom generally - that is, outside the privacy of a stall. The ACLU has included in its argument, however, that sex in stalls should not be considered sex in public ( which is unlawful ) since sex in a stall need not necessarily draw the attention of those in the washroom outside the stall.

 

[chuck.ells]

Quote from dr. fill:


The ACLU has included in its argument, however, that sex in stalls should not be considered sex in public ( which is unlawful ) since sex in a stall need not necessarily draw the attention of those in the washroom outside the stall.

If thats the case, then I'm the one who misunderstood.

I was reading it that inside the stall, with the door closed, there was a right to privacy, regardless of what was going on.
The having sex part was added by the author of the article, not necessarily by the ACLU defense.

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from SWScapital:

I would usher my child outside without answering questions and find my wife. Tell my wife to take them far away and expect a phone call.

I would make a phone call to 911 and ask for an ambulance to said addres and let them know someone was seriously hurt.

Then I would go back in the restroom and confront them. It may get ugly it may not. That would depend on the pervs actions...could get violent..could end with them running away scared of the incoming sirens. But I have no doubt in my mind that if it did get ugly I would fight them so hard I would break both my hands in the process.

Just for the record I am no homophobe. They could be two men, a man and a woman or two women. The simple fact that this occured within such close vicinity to me and my child is enough to warrant reaction.

I can understand your outrage, whether it's based on what you perceive as an affront to your family's honor or on what you perceive as an infringement on your rights to make free and appropriate use of a public facility.

If you anticipate a brawl though, I wouldn't notify the authorities beforehand ( calling for an ambulance ). This would be proof positive that you intended to initiate a confrontation that you believed might end in injury. You would probably be charged with assault whether you won or lost the battle.

If I was on the jury at your trial I'd vote not guilty regardless of the legal logic involved. Anybody who has sex in a public washroom that children might be brought into is an irresponsible asshole and needs to be punched out.

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from chuck.ells:

If thats the case, then I'm the one who misunderstood.

I was reading it that inside the stall, with the door closed, there was a right to privacy, regardless of what was going on.
The having sex part was added by the author of the article, not necessarily by the ACLU defense.

Article writers dealing with complex issues sometimes open with a simplified attention-grabbing statement that they adjust later in the article - as this writer did in this instance.

People having sex in a stall do have expectation of privacy. As Turok's pointed out, a person in a stall has expectation of privacy regardless of what she or he is doing and the cops must have probable cause to violate that privacy.

 

[chuck.ells]

Quote from dr. fill:

Article writers dealing with complex issues sometimes open with a simplified attention-grabbing statement that they adjust later in the article - as this writer did in this instance.

In other words, exaggerated, misleading statements. Statements that are intended to direct attention towards subjective matters, instead of the objective ones intended by the ACLU.

So whats this thread about. Subjective sex, or objective right to privacy?

 

[dr. fill]

Quote from chuck.ells:

In other words, exaggerated, misleading statements. Statements that are intended to direct attention towards subjective matters, instead of the objective ones intended by the ACLU.

So whats this thread about. Subjective sex, or objective right to privacy?

It started as an expression of outrage at what the initiator perceived as the audacity of the ACLU as exemplified in its argument in defence of Craig and evolved into a discussion of the legal and moral issues involved. Of course, there are always side issues raised in any thread but for the most part I've found this one has stuck more or less to the subject. This doesn't always happen.

 

[nutmeg]

What a carnival the issue of privacy has become. There is more identity theft, more surveliance cameras in strange places and every person walking around is a papparazi via cell phone. We have Hippa which gaurentees nothing except non communication among family members, while the rest of the world has access to medical records. We have cookies and bloggers who make our business someone else's business and caller id to "out" us.

The political privacy issue is one giant smoke screen. Privacy marketed through perception not reality.

****Prolly the sum total arguement here is for cameras in restrooms but not stalls.****