Now we are comparing the privacy of a bathroom to a lifestyle? I think this is a little bit reaching. You claimed that the reason you can't relieve yourself in a changing room is because there weren't any toilets. Now you suggest to bring a baggie. You would honestly be ok with someone filling a container with waste in a changing room before you go in there? I have a hard time believing anyone is going to really find this acceptable.


You opened that door. You said "You won't be catching me in a quickie, I assure you." I was just inquiring why it is that if it is ok, why you would not do it? I would not have asked if you hadn't brought it up.


Again, you are wrong. He was not charged with lewd conduct. If I am wrong, please educate me. The police reports can be found here. But I am curious as to why you think that by what is reported by the police, he should be charged with solicitation or lewd conduct. Because his foot crossed under the partition? Because his hand was on the bottom of the partition? I would rather have someone's foot cross the line than hear a couple of people going at it in the next stall, but that might just be me.

What I find most interesting is that you find it acceptable for people to have sex in a public bathroom, but you think the charges would be acceptable for Craig if they were lewd conduct. Can you explain that?

If you're going to get creative with the space, may as well make for an easy clean-up. Acceptable is besides the point. What is legal is paramount. And what is legal in this case is the establishment of privacy.

Because there are no senators and no airports near my home with which to participate. Fair enough?

I wrote that his charge was reduced from lewd to disorederly conduct. This is partly design since Congressmen are given special treatment- it's in the Constitution. So I do not believe he should be charged at all given the privacy factor alone. It has been my maintained position on this matter that whatever anybody, regardless of their station in society, should be exempt from any charge whatsoever given that restrooms are a private locale in a public venue.

So given your position on the establishment of privacy, anything goes behind the walls of a stall?


I can read between the lines, so ok, fair enough.


But to reduce a charge from one to another, the original must have been charged, which as a statement of fact, it wasn't.

Yes. Simple as that. Americans do illegal things in private all the time. While I am not advocating starting a meth lab or sacrificing some goats to the hethen gods in a public lav, it seems acceptable to me to engage in a perfectly natural human behavior behind closed doors.

Every media outlet in this nation reported Craig's guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct. False-reporting can earn them fine after fine and peanlty after penalty. Regardless of what he was doing and whether or not a penalty exists because of it, the public knows Craig's intention through personal statements and those of the police officer responsible for the catch as it were.

The fact of the matter is, the government cannot charge people for their private actions unless they are expressly illegal. What Craig was doing [soliciting] is of course illegal, no argument from me. But if it had escalated and if two people had been engaged in a mutually-agreed upon act of sex, there would be no proof of solicitation. It all snowballs from there.

Hey, it's your world, but when you advocate for a couple of horny people to jump each other in a bathroom stall, you better have a good explanation to those that take offense, or to the kids that should not be subjected to those actions.


I have not denied anything about disorderly conduct, I am saying that lewd conduct was never charged. You have yet to prove to me that it was. I have proved that it wasn't, but you still claim that his plea to disorderly conduct was a plea bargain. Where is the lewd conduct charge?

What personal statements did he make? He admitted to the public that he was there for sex? Please provide that statement if it is true. I know of no such statement. As far as the cops statements, he took some really vague actions on the part of Craig to interpret solicitation of sex. Why was Craig not charged with any sexual crimes?


So you know as a fact that Craig was soliciting? I know there is a lot of speculation, but from a legal standpoint, I have seen nothing that proves such. Just because someone comes out and says that they had sex with Craig in a bathroom doesn't prove anything. How often do people make unfounded claims against those in a higher position in society for the notoriety. What proof, besides hearsay, do you have that he was soliciting sex?

I have yet to see any argument that makes any sense to me that supports the fact that sex in a public bathroom is legal, or even acceptable. Putting yourself in a position to have sex in the presence of a minor, or having sex in the presence of a minor should be, if it isn't already, illegal. Especially other people's minors. Anyone that argues otherwise has a sick sense of what is appropriate for minors.

Family values should never be the guise from which to launch attacks at the rights of citizens. You spend eighteen years earning the full rights of citizenship in this country, and if a four year-old overrides protected liberties, what's the point? If parents are so very, very concerned with sex in public restrooms, a simple alternative would be the family-friendly companion restroom, thereby eliminating any chance of viewing two people engaging in sexual feats. This of course is assuming the companion restroom is not already in use.

Your refusal to acknowledge Congressional special treatment in all run-ins with the law cannot be helped. There are powers in the Constitution that protect Congresspeople that get extended further than the founders perhaps once intended, but this is the world we live in. If Craig was not there for sexual ecounters, the whole issue is moot anyway. Not everything has to be spelled out black and white for people to know what was going on.

So, you are suggesting (perhaps in jest) the construction of a companion restroom, specifically to allow sex-crazed couples to *ahem* couple in peace?

Wouldn't it be easier to simply enforce a pre-existing law, which states that lewd conduct is impermissible in public areas?

Family values may seem inconsequential to you, but please remember that a good many people in this country are family people. THough I admit I myself do not have a child (although I'm working on it ) I have seen all-too often the effects of lewd situations in combination with children. (Hint: Never invite drinking buddies to large gatherings)

Yes, the "Think of the Children" argument is both tired and overdone. But it has merit. While it is true that the mental state of one small child should not be allowed to jeopardize the rights of the greater whole, the converse is also true: rights should not be extended to the point at which children can be easily exposed to...things. Mind-blowing sex, public urination, or what-have-you.

If our dear senator recieved special treatment, well, good for him. But he was never charged with lewd conduct, and thus, by Law, was never engaged in it. Its the truth of law: only that which is documented and proven can be true. Special treatment or not, I doubt Craig possesses the ability to warp the logical thought processes of an entire court.

Ah, yes... I'd also like to thank quarkhead for shedding some light on this.

It appears that the ACLU refers to Bryant as an "even if" sort of precedent.

Craig only plead guilty to the disorderly conduct charge. After reading this brief, I'd say he does have grounds to withdraw his plea on that count. It's not to say that he isn't guilty, but that it should go to trial as there is a real constitutional question regarding that particular law and you can't really plead guilty to an unconstitutional law.

In terms of the second charge, I'd say he's guilty. But, he hasn't plead guilty on that charge.

I also think that he may not be convicted of the disorderly conduct count. The "sting" didn't go far enough to determine whether or not Craig wanted to have sex in a hotel room or right there in the stall. And I agree that the gestures alone do not fit what would be considered disorderly conduct according to the law. Might Craig have intended to have sex in the stall? I think that's incredibly likely considering that he was waiting on a flight. But, the undercover officer didn't know that at the time.

Who said anything about family values? There is a reason there is an age restriction on some movies. There is a reason we have pornography laws. It has nothing to do with family values. It has everything to do with age appropriate material. Two people having sex in a public place is not age appropriate for children. I know the Libertarian viewpoint on legislating morals, and I agree with most of it, but in this instance, we are discussing a public place. We can't limit a family's ability to allow their children to go to the bathroom because of some civil liberties issue. There is a time and place, and the time isn't when children can be exposed and the place is not the bathroom at McDonalds.


I understand that Congress members get special privledges, but there has not been any factual basis presented that it was Senator Craigs Congressional status that based the decision on the charges brought against him, and I have yet to see anything presented that shows that members of Congress are exempt from being charged with sex crimes. That would be an interesting article to read, if you can find one.

I am [correct, with tongue in cheek] suggesting that the companion restroom may be used by the over-protective parent wishing to spare their child from the odds-are-against-it viewing of two people engaging in sex.

Sure, I wholeheartedly agree with the enforcement of laws. But the question for debate is: Does the person have an expectation of privacy? I say yes.

Good luck and keep us posted on the progress with a child of your own!

In any event, if sex in a bathroom cannot be private, urination in a bathroom must be public, and is therefore a detrement to children's pysches by your own theory. But that's neither here nor there. If it matters so to the parents of small children, stalls can be built so the walls go to the floor and the ceiling, thereby limiting any unsightly... groping, perhaps.



In very broad strokes: I am seventeen. I'm still subject to some of those movie regulations, and let me tell you I've flagged them illegaly since I was twelve. Not the same as Little Johnny viewing Senator Friendly being a little too riendly in the airport bathroom, but children aren't nearly as fragile as we give them credit for. It doesn't make me want to take my neice out hunting for those engaging in bathroom sex, but parents can police the enviornment their kids are in. If that includes being silly and having to check a bathroom for sexual ecounters because that's the horny society we live in, so be it.

But the bathroom wasn't at McDonalds. It was nighttime and it was at an airport. Transient enough most children wouldn't wander in alone.

The fact he isn't jail speaks volumes as to his status.

Location seems to be irrelevant to you. You claim that what goes on behind the closed stall door in a public bathroom, any bathroom is private, and it is no one elses business, except for the fact that everyone in the bathroom will be able to know what is going on, making it public business.

A lot of people get arrested and don't go to jail. Your point does not support as a factual basis that he was not charged with a sex crime due to his political status. I am still waiting for something more concrete than an opinion to support your claims.

Yes, that would be my position on the matter. However, it's not the public's business if the door is closed. That's a barrier. Barrier's keep the public's interest out. May be semantics, but it's pragamtic also.

I don't have to support it, since, as you chronically remind us in this thread, he was not charged for lewd conduct regardless. It is the mere reality of the world we live in that Congresspeople have an easier time in dealing with criminal charges.

When we start installing real, floor-to-ceiling doors like they have in the UK, you will have a point. However, the 'doors' found on US restroom stalls don't really provide privacy, do they? When I hear moaning (and whatever else), look at the ground and see two sets of feet (or maybe 2 feet and a macy's bag ), those guys aren't really in 'private' are they.

At the risk of contradicting myself, however, it is only in the past 100 or so years, in only about 20% of the world (the developed West), that children have been "protected" from hearing / seeing sexual behavior, at least by their parents. I would bet that children of those who live in huts or one-room shacks probably are pretty relaxed about seeing or hearing such things, even in the men's room.

It all snowballs from there.
Funniest comment on this thread.

Sure, I'll give you that. However, a door is a door is a door. The only thing suspect in anyone soliciting for sex in a public restroom is their taste in locale. Otherwise, I still maintain that the privacy factor exists in spite of the security cameras that may/may not be watching.

You can hear grunting from other acts in a stall and not be tempted to look. Imagination goes a long way.

I'm glad you appreciate it.

So you can't support your claim that he was not charged with lewd conduct because of his status. Thanks. You also can't support that sex in public bathrooms is protected by privacy laws. Thanks.

None of us are privy to the private records of Congresspeople's dealings with the police to that scale. That's elemental government.

The question for this debate is centered around the expectation of privacy, not the legality of it.

You have continued to claim knowledge of plea bargains, personal statements and the fact that his congressional status prevented him from recieving stiffer charges. I have simply asked you to support these statements. Simply assuming that he is getting a lesser charge because he is a Congressman is usually filed under 'Conspiracy Theory' with many people. So far, you have gone from explaining the constitutionality of his lower charges, to "None of us are privy to the private records of Congresspeople's dealings with the police". I was just looking for facts supporting your position.


You are the one that is pointing out the constitutional right to privacy. You are the one that claims people have the legal right to have sex anywhere there is a partition, even in public. I am not the one that is arguing on the legality of the person's right to fornicate in public bathrooms. I am simply following your position and opposing it.

If you want to go down the expectation of privacy road, there is no implied expectation of privacy to the extent that allows two people to have sex in a public bathroom. There is, however, an expectation of privacy to go to the bathroom in a public bathroom.

Have to disagree. The airport is the one place that you will likely find children at all times of the night and day. People often have no choice but to fly at all hours with their children. And after a certain age (pretty young, about six), it isn't appropriate for the boys to go to the women's restroom or vice-versa. If a parent of the opposite-sex is escorting them, they have to go in alone. And, honestly, should the airport be a brothel? We generally keep those zoned in red-light districts for a reason. "Imposing morality" goes both ways.

Well, Mrs. P., I would agree with you in a perfect world. But since some people are lacking in the self-restraint department, wouldn't you prefer your children be relatively shielded by sex occurring in a bathroom over the gate terminal? It's a natural function of two human beings, it's not morally indecent. At least people in a bathroom have a barrier, the thickness or appropriateness of said barrier may be in dispute, but what on this website isn't disputed?

subcatim, I've run out of ways to repeat the same thing. However, not once have I ever claimed intimate knowledge of this case; so no, I've not claimed knowledge of a plea bargain. I claim an understanding of the rights of Congresspeople when facing similar situations. And none of us are privy to the records because it's protecting the same thing he assumed he had in the airport bathroom: Privacy. There's nothing conspiratorial in saying that a member of Congress has privileges ordinary Americans do not.

And your last points have been constantly redressed through my postings.

Why do you continue to repeat the same thing? Saying it over and over again does not make it true.






So what were these? Assumptions?


And how does your understanding specifically apply to this case?


What specifically does this refer to? I honestly do not follow you here.

Those are facts.

For example:



Disorderly conduct.



Establishment of lewd conduct.

Since he was not charged with lewd conduct, it's reasonable to assume it was dumbed down to disorderly.



Craig tried using his position in the Senate. It may've worked. The brief is mum on that. But it can be assumed given the letter of the Constitution it had a positive outcome for Mr. Craig.

Source

In the vein of privacy. It's reasonable to assume someone seeking sex would expect privacy.

So if you follow the quotes from your posts, you will see that most recently, you claim "However, not once have I ever claimed intimate knowledge of this case", then the quotes that I provided follow with you making the bold statements that you did regarding his plea from lewd conduct to disorderly conduct etc. I then asked you what your quotes were if you, like you stated recently, had not once claimed knowledge of the case. You then come back and call them facts.

I really need a big roll of duct tape to keep my head from exploding trying to figure this out. Are they facts, or are they not? Do you claim that you know that he entered a guilty plea as a bargain to reduce his charge from lewd conduct or are you saying that you don't know? Do you have anything to base any of your statements and claims on?

In all fairness Scubatim- I have to say, most likely, the original charge was lewd conduct- and, that is the direction the police report seems to be going:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years...8071craig1.html

He mentioned "lewd conduct" several times, including the invasion of privacy by peering into the stall.

So, though no official record is available, I am quite sure, had he not plead out- the higher charge would have been made public record.

do you agree that if a defendent is cooperative, that the police frequently charge the perp with a lessor crime? According to the police document, I think it is perfectly reasonable for a solicitation and lewd conduct charge to be appropriate, and they probably said this as they hauled him down to the station.

I don't think a leap of faith is neccesary to understand that Craig WAS facing solicitation and lewd conduct charges, had he not plead out.

Of course, it is hard to tell, as that is the way the system operates, but I think your defense of Craig in this circumstance is a bit of a leap as well. The dude got busted trying to get some stall sex on. He got lucky with the reduced charge and no one running to the press at the time. However, sites like TSG WILL find you eventually

Also- QH has busted the whole idea about this being a privacy issue with the ACLU- perhaps we should get back on track as to if this is a winnable deal for the ACLU.

Reading CNN to glean facts does not qualify as intimate knowledge. I call that "reading."

And as I originally stated from the get-go, the national media would not report anything but facts in a case like this; they couldn't afford not to.

Article One, Section Six of the United States Constitution:



Roughly stating that a Congressperson can be charged but not arrested, it is not a huge mental leap [really, it's not] to assume that lowering the charge would make it more public relations friendly when charging Craig. Lewd conduct sounds decidedly sexual, while disorderly sounds more manageable. Craig's office wasn't available to smooth things over, but police officers aren't stupid. It's neither conspiracy nor corruption for them not to want to brand a long-standing Senator a sex maniac on the books, no matter what reputation he has attained because of the story even being public.

And with that said, the ACLU doesn't even really need to win since he won't be arrested.

Ok, so since you read it from CNN, it is fact? You are the one that said that his charges were reduced from lewd conduct to disorderly conduct. I simply asked you to provide evidence of that since I provided copies of the actual police reports that include disorderly conduct, but not lewd conduct. So, since he was not charged with lewd conduct, and was charged with disorderly conduct, how is it possible for him to plea from lewd to disorderly? You claim something about the national media not reporting anything but facts, but you have yet to provide any facts. I also find it amusing that you think everything the media reports is fact.


OK, so he could be charged but not arrested. Why, and please don't just assume, provide factual information, was Senator Craig not charged with sexual crimes? You read into the actions of the police, but in debate, reading into things doesn't provide anyone with strong argument. Facts do.

When the arresting officer says "lewd conduct" more than once, it's easy to assume that was the direction he planned to take the charges. However, since he didn't, and there is no factual basis, and I have repeatedly stated this is an assumption based on fact, you yourself called it a conspiracy theory, factual evidence is in the assumption.

Please do not paint me as a sheep. I know the difference between media honesty and a spin. However, a quote that can be found in reports, on CNN, Fox, Reuters, AP, etc. doesn't lend itself to the "Media is evil" philosophy.

Ok, so I went back to the police report. The first two pages here are the original police officer's report in regards to the arrest. "Lewd Conduct" is used once in the report. It is used to illustrate how Craig positioned his roller bag in the stall. Can you believe that he put the bag against the stall door in front of him!?!? Who does that!?!? (note the hint of sarcasm)

Where else does the arresting officer mention lewd conduct? In fact, if you read all ten pages, it is not used again at all. So, the officer doesn't even use the term lewd conduct in relation to anything specifically about Craig, only in that he feels it is a sign that it would block the view of sexual activity. I say that it also is a good place to keep your bag near you so it isn't stolen since there is rarely any room next to the toilet for a bag. Where do you suggest he put it when in the stall? Anyone have any other ideas?


I am not painting anything of the sort. You said that you got your information from CNN and that they would not report anything but facts in a case like this. I have used the police report as my basis for information. Which do you think is more reliable? I am really interested in reading these quotes that you refer to. You are the one that read them, share them with the rest of us, if they exist.

Another tangential point beaten like a rented mule, another interesting thread dies a horrible death.

You guys have been going back and forth on this stuff for 27 of the past 33 posts. Now, scubatim, you are down to attacking VDemosthenes' sources, which look good enough to satisfy everyone else who can still stand to follow this thread. Let's move on to something more relevant.

John, I can always count on your input, can't I? Thanks for heling out, but I did not attack VDemosthenes' sources. I did however call him out on not making factual claims. I am surprised that someone such as yourself that is quick to demand sources does not see that.

If you have something more relevant to bring up, please do so. Leaving instruction to the board to keep a discussion on track is the job of the Mods, and you don't fall into that category, last I checked.

Why not?, they've defended the Klan, terrorist detainees, not to mention accused criminals. They've even represented christian students. They file these briefs based on constitutional concerns, NOT based on who the defendant is. That is a hard concept for the likes of O'Reilly, but he who screams the loudest about moral outrage, is missing the constitutional boat.



That case isn't about sex in a stall, and I'm not certain why that is constantly brought up. The real issue is about whether or not private sexual solicitation is illegal, as public sexual solicitation is.




The Minnesota statute is too broad and would apply to protected speech, as well as unprotected speech. There is also a problem related to regulation of private sexual speech. The ACLU brief cites a few cases to back up that assertion.



The ACLU brief is chocked full of cases that could be easily translated to this case. I'm not certain how the Minnesota statutes are overly broad, but the ACLU has a good record of finding bad laws and getting them turned through the court system. Provo City Corp vs. Willden is one such case that backs up their assertion that private sexual solicitation is in the same ballpark as public sexual solicitation. I think they just might win the case based on the liberty to private solicitation. If they lose, will cops go to bars and arrest men who are turned down from attractive women?

This is where the topic got off topic to begin with. At no point was there anything in the original police report, or any other report that I have found that indicates that there is any solid factual evidence that he was soliciting anything. If the real issue is about private sexual solicitation, there is nothing in the case that relates to that.

I believe you are confusing a plea bargain with a reduction in charges. Where does VDemosthenes say that Craig entered into a plea bargain for a lesser charge? Perhaps I missed it. I believe he said the charges were reduced because he was a member of Congress.

How about these quotes:

Please explain how you can reduce charges that were never charged. I need help with that one. So far no one has been able to substantiate their claim that his charges were reduced from lewd conduct to disorderly conduct. VDemosthenes even claims, as you can see above that it is on record. Still waiting to see these records.

With that said, the original charge would have to be lewd conduct for it to be reduced. If you are saying that in a situation where Craig was not a Congressman that he would have been charged with lewd conduct, you are just assuming things. Nothing in the police report indicates anything lewd took place, or that there was a solicitation for anything lewd. My point is that those that get all of their "facts" from CNN, Fox and other talking heads are not accurate. If you read the police report, show me where the police would have had grounds for filing a charge of lewd conduct. The only time the term lewd conduct was used was to describe why the cop had reason to believe before Craig even sat down that he was there for sex, and that was because he put his roller back against the door of the stall. Now how many of you have put your carry on bag on the floor in front of you in a bathroom stall at an airport? Of those that are raising your hand, how many of you did that because you wanted to have sex in the bathroom with the guy sitting in the next stall?

When one pleads innocent or guilty, one enters a plea. This is not a plea bargain. A plea bargain is when a defendant says they will enter a specific plea in exchange for something.

VDemosthenes may be incorrect about what was actually charged and what may have been reduced, but he never claimed there was a plea bargain - unless I missed someting. Charges can be reduced without a plea bargain.

Ok, maybe VDemosthenes wasn't referring to a plea bargain but he should have been, but there still is no evidence of any charges being reduced. If so, what was the original charge that was reduced to disorderly conduct? I do have to ask though, if there wasn't a plea bargain (you can find the plea in the last 3 pages of the link I provided earlier) what happened to the privacy charge? Did that just disappear? No, if you read on page 9, paragraph 11, you will read the words "plea agreement". So, given those facts, there was a plea bargain, but no charges were reduced. One of the charges was dropped. There was never, at any time, any criminal charges relating to any sexual conduct.

Yes, it appears that the privacy charge was dropped as part of a plea agreement. He also had a portion of his sentence stayed. If he withdraws his plea, the privacy charge comes back and if he loses, I'm sure the prosecutor will seek the max.

No argument on that point. If he withdraws his guilty plea, I would expect all charges to be back on the table. You can definitely expect the prosecutor to seek the max, though only time would tell. He is a sitting Senator, and one point in this thread that has never been contested is the fact that Congress members do get some privilege, not to mention they probably have some high-priced attorney in their corner.

Now as far as the involvement of the ACLU and whether or not the prosecutor can make the charges stick, that is a different discussion. From the police report, it could appear that Craig was peering through the crack of the stall, but I am sure a good attorney could argue that the cop was mistaken. That would leave reasonable doubt about the intent of him peering through the door, which is where I suspect the privacy charge comes from. I also, from reading the report, am having a hard time getting a grasp on why disorderly conduct was charged. It didn't appear from the narrative of the arresting officer that Craig was loud, boisterous, disrespectful or offensive.

I've retired from this debate for lack of perspective, but I shall clarify:

A syntactical error on my part, I assure you. A reduction of charges can be done without an official plea bargain, which is what I believe happened because of his status as a Congressman per the Constitution.