Comments on: links for 2008-01-16

By: Thomas Thurman

Thomas Thurman — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:01:43 +0000

I seem to remember that there was for a long time a defence in England against gross indecency, which was that cottaging was a private activity because you had to pay a penny to get into the stall. Slate magazine has an article, actually:

The House of Lords actually debated the question of whether a stall in a public lavatory constituted “privacy,” the reason being that in Britain you have to put money in a slot in order to enter such a place, and this could be held to constitute rent. Private Eye printed a poem about the learned exchange on this between two elderly peers of the realm: “Said Lord Arran to Lord Dilhorne, a penny/ should entitle me to any/ thing I may choose privately to do. Except you.”

This all changed with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, where any sexual activity in a public lavatory is punishable with six months in jail. Yes, as far as I can see, being unexpectedly discovered quietly masturbating in a public lavatory can land you in prison. I don’t understand it either, but there you go.

By: Eduardo Padoan

Eduardo Padoan — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:07:29 +0000

Sounds like a “The Onion” article.

By: jdub

jdub — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:45:05 +0000

I don’t really have a strong opinion on the ACLU’s position. But I can’t imagine the Senator ever having been a big fan of them in the past for partisan and ideological reasons.

“Strange cubicle-fellows”, so to speak.

By: Dom Lachowicz

Dom Lachowicz — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:43:05 +0000

@Adam - but you don’t have a right to privacy in the officer’s loo next to yours. Once your foot and hand go under the cubicle wall in an attempt to solicit sex from the person next to you, you’ve waived any right to privacy you might have had, had you stayed within your own space.

Now, if Senator Craig were quietly wanking in his own cube, that might be a different issue. But that’s not what Larry Craig allegedly/admittedly did.

By: Adam Williamson

Adam Williamson — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:02:34 +0000

Might sound odd, but it’s right.

When you’re in a cubicle in a public loo, you have an expectation of privacy, i.e., you don’t expect someone to just barge right into the cubicle without checking if anyone’s in there first, right? Apply this to yourself just sitting in a public loo doing your…business. That’s what you’d expect, I hope.

Logically speaking, the theoretical “person barging into the cubicle without checking if anyone’s in there” does not know what’s going on in the cubicle, so the expectation of privacy can’t logically depend on what the person / people inside the cubicle are doing. If it exists for the person sitting there with a newspaper and using the cubicle for its intended purpose, it also logically applies to the two people in the cubicle going at it, no?

By: Maxo

Maxo — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:53:21 +0000

The first paragraph of the article stinks to me. I think they are taking the ACLUs words and twisting them in a way to intentionally make the ACLU look stupid.
Reading the rest of the article it seems clear that the ACLU is arguing that the Minesota Supreme court is the one who said that those having sex in closed stalls have a right to privacy. The ACLU is simply stating that if their supreme court says this is true, then the lower courts have to honor this decision and act accordingly. I would agree that the lower courts do have to honor the ruling of their states Supreme Court, even if the Supreme Court rules something as ridiculous as having sex in public stalls is a private issue.