We Should’ve Seen This Coming. . .

. . .the ACLU has filed a brief in support of Larry Craig, claiming that people having sex in public bathroom stalls have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” 

Well, this is the idiotic, yet logical, endpoint to the incessant and ill-founded broadening of our Constitutional right to “privacy.”  Really, if women can violently slaughter their helpless offspring in the womb in the name of “privacy,” then I guess perverts having the “right to privacy” while banging each other in public bathrooms isn’t much of a stretch.  I would expect as much from the ACLU, who nobly fight to preserve the rights of pedophiles to teach the fine art of deceiving and raping children. 

First of all, when you’re in a public bathroom stall, just because most of your body is hidden by walls does not mean that, all of a sudden, you’re no longer in a public place.  What is more public than a restroom that hosts thousands of people a day?  And here’s a crazy idea: perhaps we have a reasonable expectation of privacy while we’re doing what a public restroom is there for—as the little ones would say, “going potty”—but not while, say, assembling a bomb, molesting a minor, smoking crack, or soliciting sex from a stranger in the next stall (who may or may not welcome disgusting come-ons in a public toilet).  I feel the republic would survive if courts uphold the common-sense principle that one should not expect privacy in a public (or semi-public) place for the purpose of carrying out illegal acts.  Sure, you have an expectation of privacy while you drop your deuce, hurl, cry over your ex-boy/girlfriend, or do whatever other legal thing you enter a bathroom stall to do.  But if there’s a cop around and you give them reason to believe you’re up to shenanigans—e.g., sending up a cloud of crack smoke, or sticking your wang under the stall divider—there goes your “right to privacy,” and off you go to the hoosegow. 

Also, even if Craig could be said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy while doing illegal things in his own stall, he certainly doesn’t have such an expectation when it comes to the inhabited stall next to him: that’s someone else’s space. 

Don’t the rest of us have a right to be free of physical intrusions from freaks of the week while we (as my Mom would say) tinkle?  What about our right to Right to Pee In Peace?  Sheesh.    

Whether the cop in the next stall had reasonable cause to arrest Craig based on his body language is another question entirely.  I myself consider Craig’s toe tapping and finger-curling to be suspicious and strange, but hardly grounds for arrest and public humiliation.

Advertisements

~ by lewdandlascivious on January 15, 2008.

One Response to “We Should’ve Seen This Coming. . .”

  1. I feel the republic would survive if courts uphold the common-sense principle that one should not expect privacy in a public (or semi-public) place for the purpose of carrying out illegal acts. Sure, you have an expectation of privacy while you drop your deuce, hurl, cry over your ex-boy/girlfriend, or do whatever other legal thing you enter a bathroom stall to do. But if there’s a cop around and you give them reason to believe you’re up to shenanigans—e.g., sending up a cloud of crack smoke, or sticking your wang under the stall divider—there goes your “right to privacy,” and off you go to the hoosegow.

    ROFLMAO. Oh, priceless. I love it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: