This is bogus. Youcan’t arrest and convict someone for tapping his foot. Even if it is a message, so what. That’s protected free speech. Even if he is cruising, the other can say no. So, where is the crime, here?
You’re not getting the point. This is not tapping like you would to the beat of a song. This is reaching your foot under the stall far enough to tap the foot of the guy in the next stall.
I think we are all knowledgeable enough to know that we respect and expect respect in the boundaries of the stall when you’re using the toilet. To tap the other guy’s shoe and do it repeatedly which is what Craig is accused of requires effort - it was not accidental. The cop was apparently there because there was a lot of perversion going on in that bathroom. Note that the cop said that Craig lingered outside the stall for a couple of minutes looking through the cracks trying to check out the cop before he went in the next stall and made his move. Craig is apparently a real pervert and the cop had been making numerous arrests over a several month period for this stuff.
I really agree with your point! I just hate cop entrapment! It is alway border line legal and it alway reminds me of the FBI paying Randy Weaver to cut the end off of a shotgun then killing his wife over it. Why can't the cops just roust the queers? But that would be profiling wouldn't it.
Rubbish!
So you can approach a prostitute on a street corner and ask her for "a date", and that is protected free speech?
Try it to an undercover cop sometime, see how far you get....
A couple of thoughts that might end up being long. First what if it had been say a 17 year old kid on the other side of the stall?
Second. Free speech is fine, but if you tell someone you are going to beat them to death that is at least making terroristic threats.. at worst assault. If you make contact that is battery. Neither are or should be protected under free speech.
Cruising face to face, seeing your partner is one thing but infringing on someone else’s private space is at least impolite, at worst see above.
Free speech is fine and what our country is about, but our society and most modern civilization has agreements called laws that draw boundaries. Those agreed to restrictions on how, where, and when you can have free speech...or when it is a public nuisance or even hazard are set down as law.
Riding down the street in a neighborhood of dynamite workers blaring your thoughts over a megaphone at 12:00 p.m. is impolite, unfair, and the lack of sleep for the dynamite workers could cause injury or death the next day. It could be hazardous to the workers or nearby public.
Free speech does not apply in all situations and that is why we have laws about making threats, harassment, intimidation, causing a disturbance, etc.
What we agree with or not personally as concerns behaviors, it is a fact that as a society we have agreed to laws that keep things somewhat sane in daily life.
If someone wants to cruise, hit one, pick up, proposition, etc, face to face... another adult... with no coercion... during normal hours is one thing and should be free speech because the other person can say no. But when you do it at the wrong time, in the wrong circumstances, with the wrong tone of intent (want a date or want to die) you step beyond.
Again, what if the person on the other side have been a 17 year old kid? What if he had been a mental handicapped individual? Neither should have been put into the position of having to assert themselves in unfamiliar surroundings to stop the unwelcome or unrequested "advances".
Craig was probably okay until he touched the other person, or intruded in his space (multiple times). Doesn’t a person in society have the individual right to expect privacy while doing his “business”? Otherwise we would have not reason for private stalls in bathrooms and could just “go” outdoors or say in the airport lobby. It benefits both sides to use bathrooms.
Herd animals, cavemen, and early man probably were not quite as immodest as modern man. Most today prefer our societal customs and laws and don’t want to go back to those times.
Most today have the courage, and enjoy approaching someone they are interested in as a potential partner. Most however, would find it sort of creepy to be doing your private “business” in a bathroom stall and have some creep touching you (in your stall—from their stall) or gesturing for you to come out or over to theirs. Particularly if you hadn't yet even seen them face to face.
That is why we have society and why even in even our country (with the acknowledged and agreed right to free speech) the citizens have also agreed on certain limits and behaviors to that right.
Senator Craig has a right to free speech but not under certain (agreed to) circumstances to impose it on another who did not welcome or request it. If Senator Craig wanted to stand in his stall and recite the ten commandments, passages from the Kama Sutra, or the Koran... that is okay and free speech.
However there are certain circumstances where not having completely unrestricted free speech makes for a better society.
Sitting on a toilet, in a bathroom stall, doing your private business is one of those places and times you should have a reasonable expectation not to be touched or otherwise impeded in your "business".
That tends to make a modern society, and that most tend to think that also.
Yes, and in our pro-homo society, I can't see governments setting up sting operations to try to entrap perverts. There has to be more to this than we've been told.
He was arrested for Interference with Privacy and Disorderly Conduct.
Which is correct.