Craig Now Absurdly Claiming Constitutional Violations
---
Self-loathing homosexual and pathological liar (oh, and United States Senator) Larry Craig has concocted yet another way to not go quietly into that bad night:
--Craig peered into a closed bathroom stall, to the point where the undercover officer could see the color of Craig's eyes. This is constitutionally protected conduct -- how?
--Craig reached under the divider so deeply that the officer could see Craig's wedding band. This is constitutionally protected conduct -- how?
--Craig physically touched, without consent, another person. This is constitutionally protected conduct -- how?
The fact that the person in the other stall was an undercover police officer does not negate the fact that the person in the other stall was a person -- a person in the most private zone in the universe.
There is no First Amendment right to be a Peeping Tom. There is no First Amendment right to intrude upon another human being's most private bodily functions. There is no First Amendment right not to care whether another person might be neither a cop nor another consenting cretin before intruding upon his most inhibited zone of privacy.
Yes, it is all about rights -- the right not to have to deal with perverts in a public restroom. The right not to have to worry if your child wants to "act grown up" and go to the toilet unaccompanied. The right to insist that self-loathing gays accept the consequences of their self-loathing. The right to mock the mockworthy.
Those are the only rights at issue here.
Craig will argue before an appeals court that Minnesota's disorderly conduct law is unconstitutional as it applies to his conviction in a bathroom sex sting, according to a new court filing.As I've blogged previously, one can only de-legitimize the criminalization of Craig's conduct by ignoring or misrepresenting what that conduct actually was:
This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment.
--Craig peered into a closed bathroom stall, to the point where the undercover officer could see the color of Craig's eyes. This is constitutionally protected conduct -- how?
--Craig reached under the divider so deeply that the officer could see Craig's wedding band. This is constitutionally protected conduct -- how?
--Craig physically touched, without consent, another person. This is constitutionally protected conduct -- how?
The fact that the person in the other stall was an undercover police officer does not negate the fact that the person in the other stall was a person -- a person in the most private zone in the universe.
There is no First Amendment right to be a Peeping Tom. There is no First Amendment right to intrude upon another human being's most private bodily functions. There is no First Amendment right not to care whether another person might be neither a cop nor another consenting cretin before intruding upon his most inhibited zone of privacy.
Yes, it is all about rights -- the right not to have to deal with perverts in a public restroom. The right not to have to worry if your child wants to "act grown up" and go to the toilet unaccompanied. The right to insist that self-loathing gays accept the consequences of their self-loathing. The right to mock the mockworthy.
Those are the only rights at issue here.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
29 October 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
