ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

[ponderingturtle]

That isn't their claim. And it is patently obvious you have no intention of understanding what their claim really is.

Given that they have changed thier web page on this since it was initialy posted, I am not sure they know what their claim really is either.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How about attempted murder? That's just trying to kill someone...but nobody's died. How then can it be a crime?

Naa, conspiracy to commit murder. It is only talking. I mean just because I said "I will give you ten thousand dollars to kill my wife" does not mean I was serious. Why should that be so illegal if sending signals like "I want to suck your penis in this bathroom right now, and I am married, doesn't that make you so hot" is a form of constutionaly protected speech.

 

[tsg]

Because he didn't do it, or because soliciting sex in public isn't a crime?

Because soliciting for sex is not a crime (and, according to the ACLU, constitutionally protected speech) unless the sex act is to occur in public.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Because soliciting for sex is not a crime (and, according to the ACLU, constitutionally protected speech) unless the sex act is to occur in public.

Unless the sex act is to occur in public? Then why say "they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom"? If public sex acts are criminal, and the ACLU believes they should remain criminal, why require a sign to point out, specially, that the bathroom is no different from anywhere else in the criminality of sex occurring there? They didn't suggest a "No Murdering People" sign for the bathroom.

And if the ACLU is naive enough to believe people cottage only so far as propositioning and then go get a hotel room...well, they'll believe anything.

 

[tsg]

Unless the sex act is to occur in public? Then why say "they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom"?

They didn't. What they said was

"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. It is to make as many arrests as possible – arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works."

And if the ACLU is naive enough to believe people cottage only so far as propositioning and then go get a hotel room...well, they'll believe anything.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Really. We've been through all this before. Drop your preconceptions and read the article and the thread.

 

[tsg]

There's even more.

In the ACLU's Amici Curiae (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf), they state:

Almost 30 years ago, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the law involved here was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. It preserved the law by restricting its application to “fighting words,” a restriction which would almost certainly make any conviction in this case a near impossibility.

 

[Michael Redman]

The ACLU's argument hinges on the possibility that the sex act that was being solicited might have taken place in private. They claim the government needed to craft the sting so as to be sure not to arrest people soliciting sex which would take place in private.

The police, on the other hand, contend that they have tailored the sting to only grab people intending to have public sex because they're only arresting people who are soliciting sex in the public restroom at the airport, and their experience tells them that people who solicit sex in the public restroom intend to have sex right there.

The position the police take is not unreasonable. The idea that the described behavior might be used to solicit sex in private is, in my opinion, unfounded speculation that flies in the face of experience and reason. The police are not required to prove the absence of a fictitious aggrieved innocent party.

 

[tsg]

The ACLU's argument hinges on the possibility that the sex act that was being solicited might have taken place in private. They claim the government needed to craft the sting so as to be sure not to arrest people soliciting sex which would take place in private.

As it turns out, the law Craig is being prosecuted for violating was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, except in the case of "fighting words" which is very unlikely to apply here.

 

[Michael Redman]

As it turns out, the law Craig is being prosecuted for violating was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, except in the case of "fighting words" which is very unlikely to apply here.

Or so the ACLU claims. Interestingly, they chose not to quote the language of that decision. Do you really think the Minnesota defense bar is so inept that they've been allowing clients to get convicted for 30 years under a law that's been so narrowly limited by the court?

Besides, if they're right, there's no reason to throw in the much weaker arguments that follow. My guess is that this argument has been raised previously, but unsuccessfully. If I get a chance, I plan to do more researching into this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As it turns out, the law Craig is being prosecuted for violating was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago by the Minnesota Supreme Court, except in the case of "fighting words" which is very unlikely to apply here.

I don't think he is being prosecuted for anything. That is the law he plead guilty to. It is not nessacarily the only thing he could have been charged with.

 

[tsg]

Or so the ACLU claims.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Interestingly, they chose not to quote the language of that decision. Do you really think the Minnesota defense bar is so inept that they've been allowing clients to get convicted for 30 years under a law that's been so narrowly limited by the court?

That part is confusing. Their press release says nothing about the law being ruled unconstitutional as claimed in the Amici Curiae.

 

[tsg]

I don't think he is being prosecuted for anything. That is the law he plead guilty to. It is not nessacarily the only thing he could have been charged with.

Is that the sound of goalposts moving I here?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re the sex offender registry if it hasn't already been brought up here, I didn't do a state by state search for the laws regarding who gets on the list but as for the national criteria according to this website, lewd conduct in a public bathroom doesn't appear to get you on the list unless it involves a minor.

Background on the National Sex Offenders Registry

Our Crimes Against Children Unit at FBI Headquarters coordinated the development of the National Sex Offenders Registry (NSOR) and continues to lead its implementation.

The Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (Lychner Act) required the Attorney General to establish a national database at the FBI to track the whereabouts and movements of certain convicted sex offenders under Title 42 of the United States Code Section 14072. The National Crime Information Center (NCIC) run by the FBI enables the NSOR to retain the offender's current registered address and dates of registration, conviction, and residence.

The Lychner Act imposed two major obligations on the FBI that became effective October 3, 1997:

1. To establish a national database that tracks the location and movements of each person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor, has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, or is a sexually violent predator.

2. To register and verify the addresses of sex offenders who reside in states without a "minimally sufficient" sex offender registry (SOR) program. Today, all 50 states have minimally sufficient SOR programs.

Under the Act, the FBI may release relevant information to federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies for law enforcement purposes only. Public notification will only be made if it is necessary to protect the public. However, the Act specifically states that in no case shall the FBI release the identity of any victim of an offense that required registration of a sex offender.

The legislation also made it a criminal offense for a registered sex offender to move to another state and knowingly fail to notify the FBI and authorities in the new state. Notification to the FBI and state authorities must be made within 10 days upon moving to a new state and/or establishing residence following release from prison or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation. Upon release, each sex offender is notified of their lawful duty to register with the FBI and appropriate local authorities.

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexual Violent Offender Registration Program, enacted in 1994, provides a financial incentive for states to establish registration programs for persons who have been convicted of certain sex crimes.

Megan's Law, enacted in May 1996, amended the Wetterling Program legislation to give states broad discretion to determine to whom notification should be made about offenders, under what circumstances, and about which offenders.

 

[strathmeyer]

Because soliciting for sex is not a crime (and, according to the ACLU, constitutionally protected speech) unless the sex act is to occur in public.

Well, this is what was happening here, so what on earth are you talking about?

 

[tsg]

Well, this is what was happening here, so what on earth are you talking about?

The ACLU seems to think the police won't be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in court. That is what I'm talking about.

If you have more information than we do, please, enlighten us.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is, or should be, illegal about wanting to suck on someone's penis?

Nothing if you do it in private. A public bathroom is not private. And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, children use public bathrooms and little boys go in without their parent at very young ages, especially in public parks which is a common location for this perverted pleasure.

 

[tsg]

Nothing if you do it in private.

That is the point the ACLU is making.

A public bathroom is not private. And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, children use public bathrooms and little boys go in without their parent at very young ages, especially in public parks which is a common location for this perverted pleasure.

One more time, for the record, the ACLU is saying the police are unlikely to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was going to happen in public.

In short, your argument has nothing to do with what the ACLU is claiming.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is the point the ACLU is making.



One more time, for the record, the ACLU is saying the police are unlikely to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was going to happen in public.

In short, your argument has nothing to do with what the ACLU is claiming.

Except there is a long history of this particular perversion and the point of the sex is to have it in the bathroom. There is even a book based on a guy's doctoral dissertation in psychology called "The Tearoom Trade, Impersonal Sex in Public Places" which examined the phenomena. It is well established that finding a private room is not likely intended.

Now if Craig wanted to make that argument he could have, but he didn't. He instead chose to deny he was soliciting sex. Again, the combination of gestures makes that explanation implausible.

 

[tsg]

Except there is a long history of this particular perversion and the point of the sex is to have it in the bathroom. There is even a book based on a guy's doctoral dissertation in psychology called "The Tearoom Trade, Impersonal Sex in Public Places" which examined the phenomena. It is well established that finding a private room is not likely intended.

Now if Craig wanted to make that argument he could have, but he didn't. He instead chose to deny he was soliciting sex. Again, the combination of gestures makes that explanation implausible.

Craig's statements are not the ACLU's claim.

 

[Dancing David]

Re the sex offender registry if it hasn't already been brought up here, I didn't do a state by state search for the laws regarding who gets on the list but as for the national criteria according to this website, lewd conduct in a public bathroom doesn't appear to get you on the list unless it involves a minor.

In my state you can get on the registry for being charged with a crime and not convicted.