> I don't get this. We don't call it "behavior
[sic] of others" if someone were to slap us.
But looking in the crack of a stall is not the equivalent of a slap.
> But we are incorrect in being bothered by someone
peeping into a space which has been clearly
designated and chosen for privacy?
But those same stalls can also be chosen as cruising devices. If you do not want to be peeped put up some toilet paper or shoo the peeper away. If they persist, then be bothered.
> But desiring privacy during certain acts, taking the
measures to achieve that privacy, and being upset at
the invasion of that privacy is not something one needs
to feel guilty about.
Of course not. But a single peep is not an invasion of privacy. Obviously the cop gave an indication that he was not there for pooping. If he had, why would Craig have continued peeping? And if you are not there for pooping, then you are also not interested in privacy.
Jordan:
> I'm guessing that the reason he looked a few times was
that the cop was sitting there NOT taking a dump, i.e.,
waiting for a hook-up.
Exactly.
> So Craig looked a few times TO MAKE SURE, and perhaps
to catch the would-be-hook-up's eye.
Exactly. The non-pooper wants to be peeped.
WD:
> Craig was accused of invading someone else's legitimate
expectation of privacy in a public restroom stall, and I
do not see much wrong with criminalizing such invasions.
But by not shooing Craig away or putting up toilet paper, the cop forfeited his legitimate expectation of privacy.
> The answer in Minnesota is YES if the behavior is not constitutionally protected and provided that MN's statute
is not unconstitutionally vague.
Is making a sexual advance constitutionally protected so long as it is abandoned if rebuffed?
> When you enter a stall your expectation of privacy increases
substantially.
And if you do not shoo away your peeper or put up toilet paper, it decreases substantially as well.
> The expectation is that you will be able to take a dump
without being subjected to any intentional gazing or physical
interference such as someone in an adjacent stall putting his
hand in your stall.
All true so long as you do not encourage it. But in this case it seems obvious that the cop encouraged Craig's actions.
> According to the police report, Craig blatantly peered into
the stall and put his hand under the divider. He didn't ask
the cop if he wanted to fuck (that would have been
Constitutionally protected),
Putting his hand under stall was the act of asking!! You need to brush up on your tea room etiquette. Tea room communication is almost totally non-verbal. Is only verbal communication protected?
> Rather he engaged in behavior that reasonable people of all
genders and sexual preferences in our culture would consider
an invasion of their personal privacy.
And was encouraged to do so. When you encourage a peeper you cannot cry "Privacy" later.
> Why can't a dude who's cruising just wait for people to
finish their business and then ask for a suck or make a gesture indicating that he's looking for a suck?
But that is what Craig was doing by looking in the crack and putting his hand under the stall.
> Repealing laws that protect traditional ideas about what
constitutes a criminal breach of personal privacy in bathroom
stalls is really far down on my list, and it should be down
on yours too.
Protecting sexual expression in bathrooms, boardrooms and bedrooms is important to me. A sexually uptight world is an unjust one.
> Not me: I would be embarrassed, humiliated and annoyed.
If a sexy women peeped you and indicated that she wanted to make it a stall for two, you would refuse because of body issues? Makes no sense. She has already indicated that she likes your body, so you have no cause for insecurity. All you have to worry about is doing the nasty without getting caught.
> In fact, I don't see much of a distinction between peering
into someone's bathroom stall and putting a camera in his
bathroom at home.
There is a huge difference. A public bathroom is way different from a private home. Simple rule: if you do not want to be peeped while you poop, paper the crack (and then the seat of course) and do not encourage crusiers. Adult diapers are another alternative.
Brian