• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Craig Appeal: Hand Signal Under Stall "Protected Speech"

Why does this man insist that his political career is not dead? Cripes, this is starting to look as silly as "Weekend at Bernie's."
 
Ladewig said:
Why does this man insist that his political career is not dead? Cripes, this is starting to look as silly as "Weekend at Bernie's."
Click to expand...

How is what he did any more untold or salacious then what Vitter did (diapers!??!!?)? Oh yeah... Idaho has a Republican governor.

Daredelvis
 
Hand signals are speech.

However, soliciting sex in a public washroom is not protected speech, whether it comes in the form of hand signals, verbal words or a t-shirt that says "Please let me blow you."
 
According to the article in the OP, Craig's lawyer is saying that the conviction should be overturned because:

A. Only one person was affected.
B. The cop invited it.
C. Hand signals are protected speech.

Seems like "the spaghetti defense". Throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks.
 
Lisa Simpson said:
According to the article in the OP, Craig's lawyer is saying that the conviction should be overturned because:

A. Only one person was affected.
B. The cop invited it.
C. Hand signals are protected speech.

Seems like "the spaghetti defense". Throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks.
Click to expand...

I have to wonder why on earth he is doing this. It is a small fine, even if it is ruled that he did nothing illegal in propositioning the police officer, does that really matter politically?

Is there seriously anything to gain in this other than furthering his national humiliation? Wait maybe he gets off on humiliation...
 
Lisa Simpson said:
Seems like "the spaghetti defense". Throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Dr. Laura's nudie shots. Her lawyers sued, claiming it wasn't her. They simultaneously sued, claiming Dr. Laura owned the copyright on them. When asked, they said, "Well, you know...we're just being good lawyers trying everything available."
 
Beerina said:
Reminds me of Dr. Laura's nudie shots. Her lawyers sued, claiming it wasn't her. They simultaneously sued, claiming Dr. Laura owned the copyright on them. When asked, they said, "Well, you know...we're just being good lawyers trying everything available."
Click to expand...

In my business law class, they described it as the kettle defense. If you borrow your neighbor's kettle grill and he sues you because you returned it dented, a good lawyer would simultaneously argue 1) you never borrowed the kettle, 2) it was dented when he lent it to you, and 3) it had no dent when you returned it.
 
daredelvis said:
How is what he did any more untold or salacious then what Vitter did (diapers!??!!?)?
Click to expand...

I do not find his activities more untoward or salacious than many other scandals. I was simply observing that his constituency will not re-elect him. I believe that Idaho subscribes to that old Texas adage: never be found in bed with a dead woman or a live man.

I condemn Senator Craig for the same reason I condemned President Clinton's actions. It's not the sex; it's not the lying; it's the stupidity. In Clinton's case for starting an affair when a professional harpy with unlimited subpoena power was investigating him. In Craig's case for pleading guilty and then trying to sell the idea that he didn't understand what pleading guilty meant.
 
Last edited:
Is there a reason he didn't shut up, plead "no contest", pay a fine and go away?
 
Ladewig said:
I do not find his activities more untoward or salacious than many other scandals. I was simply observing that his constituency will not re-elect him. I believe that Idaho subscribes to that old Texas adage: never be found in bed with a dead woman or a live man.

I condemn Senator Craig for the same reason I condemned President Clinton's actions. It's not the sex; it's not the lying; it's the stupidity. In Clinton's case for starting an affair when a professional harpy with unlimited subpoena power was investigating him. In Craig's case for pleading guilty and then trying to sell the idea that he didn't understand what pleading guilty meant.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. My question was not directed at you, it was directed at the political ether.

Daredelvis
 
marksman said:
However, soliciting sex in a public washroom is not protected speech, whether it comes in the form of hand signals, verbal words or a t-shirt that says "Please let me blow you."
Click to expand...

Actually, the issue at importance here is the difference between "soliciting sex (in a public washroom)" and "soliciting (sex in a public washroom)". The former is legal (as far an I know), while the latter is not; the arresting officer's charge is that he was trying to solicit sex AND that sex was to be done in a public place.

How can the state prove that the solicited sex was to be held in a public place? I guess the arresting officer figured that that was the DA's job.
 
bignickel said:
How can the state prove that the solicited sex was to be held in a public place?
Click to expand...

An interesting defense, indeed. Given that A) Senator Footsie would rather cut out his tongue that say the words, "I was planning on having sex with the officer in a nearby hotel," and B) he already pleaded guilty, the issue become purely hypothetical. An interesting hypothetical, but one that cannot be applied here.

. . . . . . . . . . . .
ETA:
Ladewig said:
I do not find his activities more untoward or salacious than many other scandals.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I told an untruth here. I do find the old January 1999 "Meet the Press" clip of Craig calling Clinton “a bad boy, naughty boy,” before smiling and saying “even a nasty, bad, naughty boy” somewhat fascinating.

Oh, Schadenfreude, you are a naughty mistress, but I will worship at your altar nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
An interesting defense, indeed. Given that A) Senator Footsie would rather cut out his tongue that say the words, "I was planning on having sex with the officer in a nearby hotel," and B) he already pleaded guilty, the issue become purely hypothetical. An interesting hypothetical, but one that cannot be applied here.
Click to expand...

But perhaps hypotheticals are sufficient? My vague impression is that if the police arrest you in a dubious way, you in principle can go free even if it's "obvious" you're guilty. (Like inadmissible evidence or whatever.) Pleading guilty certainly counts against you, though.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
In my business law class, they described it as the kettle defense. If you borrow your neighbor's kettle grill and he sues you because you returned it dented, a good lawyer would simultaneously argue 1) you never borrowed the kettle, 2) it was dented when he lent it to you, and 3) it had no dent when you returned it.
Click to expand...

It's too bad you can't use two knowingly contradictory claims by the same person as grounds to throw both out based on *****. :) Even if one (might) be true, tough *****.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting argument.

He didn't do anything.

But if he had done something, that something was protected speech.

Never thought I'd see the day when such a man would claim such a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom