tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post653393585735485831..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Is Senator Larry Craig's 'Wide Stance' Constitutionally Protected?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-5916797693411473082008-01-17T14:40:00.000-05:002008-01-17T14:40:00.000-05:00Burgess Laughlin wrote:>If the "invitation to sex"...Burgess Laughlin wrote:<BR/><BR/>>If the "invitation to sex" consists of physically touching or even starting to touch another adult without that second person's consent, is that not a violation of rights? <BR/><BR/>I think touching another person without consent is a violation of rights. Exceptions might be during a medial emergency, when it is impossible for a person to give consent, or with minor children to keep them from danger or enforce discipline, but as a starting point, I agree with that touching is not permissible without consent. <BR/><BR/>>Isn't this what Sen. Craig has been accused of doing?<BR/><BR/>Yes, but under a law that is so overbroad that it also threatens to punish protected speech. Craig is not in the moral right for his actions, but the law that he stands accused of violating is nevertheless a defective law.<BR/><BR/>According to the statute (Minn. Stat. § 609.72(1)(3)): <BR/><BR/>"Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place . . . knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor: . . . Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others."<BR/><BR/>If you were to say that God does not exist and that to believe in Him is completely irrational, one could argue that you would run afoul of this statute too, yet it is well-established law that speech may not be made a crime solely because a listener could be offended, disturbed, alarmed or even angered by its content. I think the ACLU is right to point this out. <BR/><BR/>>2. If I own property and I make use of my property conditional on certain behavior, isn't someone who violates those terms trespassing? Isn't trespassing a criminal offense?<BR/><BR/>As trespassing, yes, but that's not what Craig is charged with.Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-91842090002156110942008-01-17T07:52:00.000-05:002008-01-17T07:52:00.000-05:001. If the "invitation to sex" consists of physical...1. If the "invitation to sex" consists of physically touching or even starting to touch another adult without that second person's consent, is that not a violation of rights? Isn't this what Sen. Craig has been accused of doing?<BR/><BR/>2. If I own property and I make use of my property conditional on certain behavior, isn't someone who violates those terms trespassing? Isn't trespassing a criminal offense?<BR/><BR/>I oppose criminalizing consensual adult sexual behavior, homosexual or heterosexual, but I strongly support laws against physical intrusions or even repeated verbal intrusions (which, perhaps, is technically harassment or something similar).<BR/><BR/>I am not a philosopher of law or a lawyer. I welcome clarification.Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.com