<p>I think I’ve seen everything now:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sex in a PUBLIC restroom can be considered PRIVATE! LOL!!! Just so long as you keep the stall door closed.</p>
<p>[Craig</a> entitled to his privacy, ACLU argues](<a href=“http://www.startribune.com/local/13817377.html]Craig”>http://www.startribune.com/local/13817377.html)</p>
<p>Well, if I were going to the bathroom – i.e., urinating or defecating – or if I were changing my clothes in a stall in a public restroom, or picking my teeth, I’d have an expectation of privacy because the stall door is closed. Why would having sex be any different??</p>
<p>(And no, I don’t support Senator Craig.)</p>
<p>If Craig uses this as a DEFENSE, isn’t that basically an admission of guilt??</p>
<p>Thus, if you hear loud noises of two (or more) people having sex in the stall next to you, neither you nor the government could stop it since they are merely exercising their right of privacy. This is why the ACLU is full of a bunch of idiots.</p>
<p>“Thus, if you hear loud noises of two (or more) people having sex in the stall next to you, neither you nor the government could stop it since they are merely exercising their right of privacy. This is why the ACLU is full of a bunch of idiots.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure why you would care or be very impacted. Just do your business and leave. I hear lots of worse things in restrooms than sex noises IMHO.</p>
<p>And how would this help Craig anyway? He was soliciting sex from someone in a stall NEXT to him - NOT in the privacy of his own stall…</p>
<p>
Think of it this way. Assume for the sake of argument that a mother takes her ten year old son to the mall. The son has to go to the bathroom while the mother waits outside. The ten year old hears two ACLU lawyers having wild sex in the stall next to him. Maybe it would not bother an adult (it would bother me), but surely a child should not be exposed to that type of behavior.</p>
<p>Looks like the constitutional right to privacy rears its head again!
[Sex</a> in restroom stalls is private, ACLU says - Capitol Hill - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/]Sex”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22674564/)</p>
<p>Sometime there just isn’t a motel nearby and “when you gotta, you gotta!”</p>
<p>
Priceless, Razorsharp!</p>
<p>There is already a thread on this-- time to merge them</p>
<p>Moving this thread up so the other one on the same topic may be merged into it.
And how come we never have this much excitement in the ladies room???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct, just as if you heard the noise of someone loudly vomiting or defecating wildly in the stall next to you you could not bother them. Seems that maybe the ACLU aren’t quite as dumb as you might think.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wouldn’t be very good. But the child isn’t exactly being “exposed” to that behavior. He’s just hearing it through a divider. By your argument, a hotel with thin walls should ban its clientele from having sex in their rooms, because children in adjoining rooms might hear them.</p>
<p>Fun as the “but think of the children!” argument is, it doesn’t necessarily make your basic point more logical.</p>
<p>1of42-
If someONE (one, not 2) was bowing to the porcelain godess, hurling in the stall next to me, I might ask if they were ok. I would also hope that nothing splattered on my shoes. By the way, how does one “defecate wildly”? Having a little trouble envisioning that one.</p>
<p>And if 2 ACLU lawyers were going at it wildly in the next stall, a kid in the next stall would probably see a whole bunch of feet in there and might get curious. In the ladies rooms, there are often little “trashcans” in the dividing walls of the stalls with swinging doors so that a person on either side can dispense the “trash” that isnt supposed to be flushed down the john. Anyway, I discovered, by having a inquisitive little fella in the stall next to me (with his mommy) that they can push both of the swinging lids from one side with his hand, and he can peer into the adjoining stall. Swell. Hope the mens rooms dont have similar viewing areas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? Being “exposed” to something does not have to be visual (or perhaps you believe blind people cannot be exposed to ANYTHING since they cannot see???)</p>
<p>And, speaking of “rights”, surely the parent and child (and every other person who may use the public restroom) have a RIGHT to not expect illegal or disorderly behavior to occur in the restroom. (Is it illegal to puke in a public restroom?) Isn’t that part of the reason why we came up with disorderly conduct laws to begin with - to control the behavior of individuals while in public, even though there may be no law against behaving in the same way if not in public? </p>
<p>In fact, I think that 38 yr old law was overturned more recently based partly on the argument that privacy rights are more limited when the privacy is not ongoing (ie there is an expectation that the person in the stall will leave and therefore does not have any permanent rights as far as that stall is concerned)</p>
<p>
What is your defintion of being exposed? Does the child have to particpate (or at least join the ACLU)? Obviously the child is being exposed to the sounds of loud sex and that is exposure enough. Your opinion is simply wrong.</p>
<p>
Ok, so the guy in the stall next to you in a government owned building is having a heart attack and dying, (he makes growns of pain but can’t say the words “help me”)the government paramedics can’t enter without an invitation because they would be invading his privacy? That is the result of your position.</p>
<p>This is discrimination!!!</p>
<p>Why should only gay people have the right to have sex in bathroom stalls?</p>
<p>Straight people can’t do it because of separate men’s and women’s facilities.</p>
<p>Except on airplanes. ;)</p>
<p>Just another area you boys have it over us in the plumbing department. It’s hard enough to get a stall in a women’s restroom as it is!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is exposure enough? So let me get this straight, are you or are you not agreeing with me that hotels then have the responsibility to ensure their guests do not have sex in their rooms (sound carries you know)?</p>
<p>You have yet to provide an even slightly convincing argument as to why my argument is wrong, much less simply wrong. 
The argument that something could corrupt children is an interesting one, but it in and of itself is not a faultless argument. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting question. I suspect that that would indeed constitute an invasion of privacy, but that it would not be punished. It is an interesting question though - I must admit that I am not aware of whether or not the law allows for mitigating circumstances like imminent harm to breach someone’s privacy rights.</p>
<p>“If Craig uses this as a DEFENSE, isn’t that basically an admission of guilt??”</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Pleading guilty was an admission of guilt. It almost takes an act of God to overturn a guilty plea. That’s why his lawyers are arguing that the law he pleaded guilty to is an invalid law – it’s just about their only option.</p>
<p>In the law, it is perfectly kosher to make arguments that would be very incriminating in real life. If you find a smashed cookie jar on the kitchen floor and you ask your kid if he did it, his refusal to answer is proof of guilt in the court of Mom. But in a criminal situation, refusing to answer questions is a constitutional right (not to mention a smart move).</p>
<p>Of course, WE are not prosecutors, judge or jury, so we’re entitled to draw whatever conclusions we want.</p>
<p>I thought they were called PUBLIC restrooms?? NOT private restrooms. </p>
<p>I agree with Scansmom that Sen. Craig was involved in a sexual interaction with the person in the stall next to him and not within the “privacy” of his own stall. I’m not sure what the space under the divider would be referred to? Public space? Private? 
:D</p>