• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

tsg said:
They aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Drop your preconceptions, read their brief (http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/craig_v_minnesota_acluamicus.pdf) and you'll be able to see that for yourself.

.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of preconceived anything, it's a matter of being tired of this topic and of repeating why I don't want public bathrooms to be used as sex-rooms.

But, sigh, since the thread technically is on yet another aspect of this case, I looked at your link. The ACLU isn't arguing about the sting, nor the sex, they are arguing the disorderly conduct charge is based on a law which is not specific enough. Seems they don't like plea bargaining when the lesser charge is really not the correct charge.

So Craig should have been charged with lewd conduct and the cop should have let Craig go a bit further in his endeavor. I can't see that this is the case someone including the ACLU needs to be addressing. Not that the behavior is creepy and the ACLU shouldn't defend it, that is their role. But the case here is simply plea bargaining that then makes the charges seem to not apply. If the charges were lewd conduct, then you get back to Rand's constantly shifting position, the gestures were lewd, the gestures weren't lewd.

Perhaps one needs to define lewd conduct better. Makes you wonder why this hasn't come up and been resolved before now.
 
skeptigirl said:
...then you get back to Rand's constantly shifting position, the gestures were lewd, the gestures weren't lewd.
Click to expand...
I can only say that I'm very disapointed. This is not true. I have maintained the very same position from the begining.

I appologized to you for personalizing the discussion. That was wrong. I'm going to ask you now to stop. Please don't make this about me. It's counter to the rules.

Fair enough?
 
RandFan said:
I can only say that I'm very disapointed. This is not true. I have maintained the very same position from the begining.

I appologized to you for personalizing the discussion. That was wrong. I'm going to ask you now to stop. Please don't make this about me. It's counter to the rules.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to insult you, I was serious. I posted a lot of evidence you just dismissed out of hand without ever addressing. And after you finally admitted there was evidence the gestures were part of the sexual ritual activity, you went back to denying you had conceded they were.

I'm insulted when people tell me I haven't posted any evidence after I've gone to great lengths to research a point or a topic.
 
nails3jesus0 said:
after reading the aclu's argument i have to agree with them.
Click to expand...
Yes, on the overly broadness of the disorderly conduct law. But I can't see that they addressed the fact Craig was charged under that law as part of the plea bargain. Is the ACLU against plea bargaining?
 
skeptigirl said:
I wasn't trying to insult you, I was serious. I posted a lot of evidence you just dismissed out of hand without ever addressing. And after you finally admitted there was evidence the gestures were part of the sexual ritual activity, you went back to denying you had conceded they were.
Click to expand...
This is not true. The fact is that I did not understand something that you were saying. When I realized your point I conceded the point (just that point). From the very beginning I've been consistent. I've said over and over that they gestures likely were what was being alleged.

So stop making this about me. I've asked you politely but you insist. I'm reporting you. Please stop.

I'm insulted when people tell me I haven't posted any evidence after I've gone to great lengths to research a point or a topic.
Click to expand...
This is not true. I never said you never posted any evidence. I acknowledged that you posted a lot of evidence. I noted the tea room evidence and I've said many times that given the evidence Craig is likely guilty.

Please stop.
 
Last edited:
tsg said:
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.
Click to expand...

You keep putting words in the ACLU's mouth.
 
RandFan said:
Yes. under these circumstances that is what they want. Communication is Protected under the first Amendment of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Exactly, TSG keeps claiming that it is because as the ACLU stated can not be doubt, but unlike the ACLU he keeps saying reasonable doubt. And denying that they are arguing that propositioning for an illegal activity should be legal. That seems to be a basic part of their argument.
There are few exceptions to this. One is solicitation. To stand up in court the solicitation must be clear and unambiguous. If I proposition an undercover officer $50 for a BJ then that is clear and unambiguous. If I wink at the officer and hold up 5 fingers that's not so clear. It might hold up in court it might not.
Click to expand...

So non verbal communication is by definition more ambiguous than verbal? Slang must also be more ambiguous as well.
However, the ACLU has indicated that it is possible to reduce this behavior with uniformed officers. If an undercover officer can spend his time in a bathroom then a uniformed one could regularly patrol.
Click to expand...

You forgot the signs, people need signs to tell them it is illegal to have sex in public.
 
tsg said:
I agree.

I will only add that my point is not whether Craig's intention was to have sex in a public bathroom, and neither is the ACLU's. My point is that there can be no discussion of whether the ACLU is right or wrong if their arguments are misrepresented.
Click to expand...

Then stop putting words in their mouth.
 
skeptigirl said:
*Don't read if you don't want to ruin your day with a particular mental picture.
*Wide stance is not conducive to defecating as it results in a tightened anal sphincter.
Click to expand...

It is also hard to manage a wide stance when your pants are pulled down. So either he had his pant up, off, or he is lying. I can't believe anyone buys this.
 
RandFan said:
Social interaction and freedom is often a messy thing. An important American freedom is expression. We should be careful when and how we infringe upon it.

Arresting someone for expressing to another the desire to have sex in a public place shouldn't per se be illegal IMO. On the other hand, a parent should be able to feel secure sending his or her child into a bathroom.
Click to expand...

You are mixing desire and intent. Wanting to have sex in a public bathroom fine, wanting someone to kill your wife, fine, asking someone to do either is very different though.

Or should we have bathrooms marked as which ones are the ones to have sex in?
 
Okay, I quit.

With precious few exceptions there is little desire to actually understand the issue here. I guess expecting rationality from a board full of skeptics was a little too much to hope for.

Go ahead and build your strawmen so you can make yourselves feel righteous by knocking them down.

I'm not interested.
 
skeptigirl said:
Well let's not exaggerate there, DD. While true, the way you put it here is misleading. I think they're just allowing for plea bargaining which is common in the justice system in every state.

Illinois sex offender registry information(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...


that would be much clearer and i assumed it was part of the plea bargin process as well, I just know that it has been reported that there are people who were charged but not convicted that are on the registry.

I sure did not mean to be misleading.
 
tsg said:
Okay, I quit.

With precious few exceptions there is little desire to actually understand the issue here. I guess expecting rationality from a board full of skeptics was a little too much to hope for.

Go ahead and build your strawmen so you can make yourselves feel righteous by knocking them down.

I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

Bravo!

What was that about?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So non verbal communication is by definition more ambiguous than verbal?
Click to expand...
I said "it might hold up in court". If it needs to be unambigous and it holds up in court then the logical implications is that non-verbal language can be just as unambigous.

You forgot the signs, people need signs to tell them it is illegal to have sex in public.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is the purpose of the signs. I think the signs are to let people know that such activity won't be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom