i don't think you get it. Your misinterpretation of a simple greeting, in the restroom, is not or should not be a criminal offense. If someone would greet you with "hey bro how's it hanging" in line at buger king you wouldn't get bent out of shape. Lighten up, smile (anywhere but the restroom! oh also keep your eyes down to floor, don't want anyone to get the wrong idea do you lol)
My post was based on the information provided in the opening post of this thread. According to the opening post the ACLU is arguing that sex in public washrooms is OK. You're right, of course, in asserting that there must be probable cause to justify police action and this would mean that there would have to be an actual disturbance since in this case only an actual disturbance could constitute probable cause. Also, the right to privacy in a washroom stall is evident in the very structure of the stall itself and apparently this right to privacy has been legitimized by way of a legal precedent. However, according to the info in post 1, the ACLU is arguing for the blanket legitimacy of sex in public washroom stalls. If this info is correct I dispute the ACLU position. P.S.: I see no problem with homosexuals soliciting each other by way of subtle signals in public washrooms as long as they go elsewhaer to consumate the act(s).
I do not conclude the above from the opening post of this thread and I believe that you are misinterpreting the position of the ACLU. The ACLU's legal position would be the same whether it was sex, drugs, currency counterfitting, or murder. -- the expectation of privacy is there *no matter what the activity*. Of course they mention "sex" in this case, 'cause that's the instance at hand -- however I don't believe the ACLE considers the specific activity central (or even tangential) to the core legal question. JB
no one (normal) wants to see sex in a restroom, hetero, homo or otherwise. but no one wants to see an innocent gesture criminalized either. non verbal communication isn't exact, with same gesture (mis)interpreted differently between individuals. how about the application of a modicum of common sense applied to and with the informed knowledge that don't always interpret the same "signals' in same way and even if another did make an overture, so what? say no thanks, and get over it
Guys! Guys! Try to look at it from the homo's point of view. You walk into a public shithouse and the smell just gets you all excited. Perfectly normal! So, you pose the question to another patron...Hey buddy, how's about we get a stall together, I'll stick my head in the toilet while you ream my ass. Now the last thing you want is an audience, unless of course you're in San Francisco.:eek: :eek: :eek:
I've researched this situation a little and reread the opening post in the context of the info I garnered from various sites and have concluded that perhaps I was a little hasty in assessing the ACLU argument. ACLU argues that anyone in a washroom stall has expectation of privacy and that this implies that sexual activity conducted in a stall is not sex in public. Further, ACLU argues, even if Craig admits to soliciting sex there's no evidence he was soliciting sexual activity to be conducted in public, whether in that washroom or elsewhere. Craig, then, according to ACLU, can't be charged with soliciting an unlawful act. Craig's body language communication, ACLU argues, is protected by the 1st Amendment as free speech. The State of Minnesota also recognizes Craig's signals as 'speech' because his signals were characterized as unlawful by way of a state law forbidding offensive language that is likely to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. The police originally charged Craig with violating the officer's privacy and the ACLU interprets this as an acceptance on the part of the police that a stall is a private place. Since Craig admitted to tapping the officer's foot with his own and to peeking under the divider between the stalls it seems to me that the police had a simpler situation with their original charge. One thing in ACLU's brief I have a problem with is their argument that had there been sex in the stall "...it would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public washroom.". That's quite an assumption. In including this point I think the ACLU weakens its position since it admits to the possibility that a washroom stall's status as a private space may be compromised if the activity taking place in it comes to the attention of the washroom-using public. If two guys are in the stall making a lot of noise is the stall really private or are the lovers sharing their activity with anyone within earshot? There's more to privacy than that which can be seen. Is it always so that in a public washroom public ends at the stall door and privacy begins?
Thanks dr fill for the time you took on follow up research. This world definitely operates on many dimensions. I should be so ignorant to shit in someone's love nest.
Exactly. Homosexual activity has been taking place in public toilets since the dawn of public toilets. Surely it can be argued that the public toilet is a gay institution of ancient standing and should be treated with the same respect given other ancient institutions such as places of worship. Do we go to synagogue to dump? Do we stand up in church and piss in the pews? Crapping in a public toilet is insulting, demeaning, and discriminatory. It offends a segment of the population that has disproportionately contributed to interior decorating, fashion, and ballet. Will we ever be truly civilized?
True. Not the case here. But what would you do if you had one of your children in the restroom helping them go. And two pervs started fucking in the stall next to you? How would you feel about sex in a public bathroom at that point? Would you feel they had the right to it or not?