# ACLU says Sen. Craig should be allowed to withdraw guilty plea # Group filed a brief in court saying Craig's arrest was likely unconstitutional
"Sen. Craig has not always been a great friend of civil liberties, but you shouldn't have to endorse the civil liberties of others to keep your own," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. - CNN
When will these people stop trying to defend people's rights under the Constitution?
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Interesting link. Don't you have an offence of soliciting in a public place? An airport would be a public place for this purpose. It doesn't matter whether any sex intended was to be in public or private. If a prostitute (or anyone else) of either sex tried to pick up men or women in the High Street of a town, or an airport, it wouldn't be a defence that he or she was taking any client home for the sex: the offence consists in the nuisance of anyone publicly soliciting for sex.
Police must be able to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the sex was going to happen in public, (Romero) said. Regardless of whether it occurs in a bathroom or a bar, solicitation for private sex is protected speech under the First Amendment, the ACLU argues.
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by DorianGreyed: From the article -
Police must be able to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the sex was going to happen in public, (Romero) said. Regardless of whether it occurs in a bathroom or a bar, solicitation for private sex is protected speech under the First Amendment, the ACLU argues.
That's what I was puzzling over.It seems odd that only planning to have sex in public is banned.Does 'private sex' really mean 'sex in private' rather than 'sex which is not paid for'? On the face of it, every hooker in Vegas could accost every man she set eyes on in the street or airport and there'd be no remedy under the criminal law provided that she intended to take any client to her home or other private place.
No, your example uses hookers, an occupation illegal in Clark County, Nevada (but not in most of the other counties).
I think private in this sense means a non-prostitute situation. The law here seems to be aimed at uninvited solicitations, an admittedly grey area. Having sex in public places is no doubt covered (or not) by other laws.
I have no doubt that the senator did what the police claimed he did; the arresting officer was apparently known for his fairness. At the least, he should have been more subtle, and he most certainly should have been less vocal in his previous anti-gay statements. Sometimes, karma works a bit more quickly than others.
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
If I remember correctly (and I may not), the officer was part of the airport police. I do remember that the airport had been getting complaints about the solicitations in that particular men's room.
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
It always seemed to me that it'd have been a pretty thin case in court. No words were spoken; a few gestures considered to be known "code," but based on the actual police report, the arrest was before any real transaction of intent. I'm glad the ACLU is there: right-wingers need protection, too. In fact, what the ACLU does ought to be applauded at least as much by the right: isn't the constitution something of which they claim to approve? (Present administration excepted, of course.) The ACLU, famously, defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, IL; they helped Rush Limbaugh. Shorthand to the contrary, the one constant is their strict defense of the rule of law, whether the victim is rich or poor, left or right, hypocrite or honest. Craig is another example of the hypocrisy of those who rail most loudly (there's a pattern...), and I feel sorry that, mainly because of his own party people like him have to recede to the shadows. Maybe the time will come when they won't. Until then (not holding breath), I'm glad for the ACLU.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Thanks for bringing the Skokie march up, Sid. What some don't seem to realize is that popular speech needs little protection; it is the unpopular speech that the First Amendment was written to protect, and the ACLU doesn't care so much about what you have to say, but cares a great deal about your right to say it.
The Constitution - It's Not Just a Piece of Paper
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The ACLU did not come to their aid when they needed it. The advertisers bailed and the company caved into their demands, but if the ACLU stepped in and got involved the outcome might have been different.
Damn Commies
Posts: 3647 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I was mystified by the reference to 'Elvis'. I see it's not the Elvis. JV and Elvis have always been free to make as many offensive phone calls as they like, surely. What right did they lose?
It wasn't a free speech issue. It was a business decision. He was being paid for his entertainment value, which brought in revenue to his employers. When that revenue dropped, for whatever reason, his worth went down. Capitalism and the law of supply and demand were the issues, not any Constitutional rights. Had Imus chosen to buy his own time somewhere, he could have called anyone names. But he didn't. He wanted to get paid to say that. The Constitution doesn't guarantee jobs.
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
(Sigh!) Will politicians never learn? It's neither. It's a 'politician lying to the public' issue. Viz. Clinton and the "I never had sex with that woman" debacle.
If he'd announced publicly that he never eats junk food, and will do his darnedest to get the filthy practice outlawed, and then was photo'd noshing down a double order of Mac's fries with gravy, his credibility would have been equally damaged.
Posts: 6256 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
"Regardless of whether it occurs in a bathroom or a bar, solicitation for private sex is protected speech under the First Amendment, the ACLU argues." - from the original article linked to above
The ACLU is arguing that you have the right to hit on anyone who turns you on, as long as it's not a business deal. The state will argue that solicitation can be, in itself, illegal in some circumstances, and is certainly illegal if the act is to be consummated in a public place.
Posts: 16990 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I guess doing a little toe tapping and saying “ pssSSssSSsstttttt, hey buddy ” and reaching under a stall is something the ACLU believes firmly in then.
Don't thay have anything better to do?
Posts: 3647 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02
