Nicklas Johnson · morons.org - Wet Paper Bags Pose Reasoning Challenge to NC Police

Morons in the News: Wet Paper Bags Pose Reasoning Challenge to NC Police

Please Support our Featured Partners!

YouHaveBO.com: The Internet's Premier Anonymous BO Notification Service
Want Your Link Here?: Find out how to get free advertising with our partnership program!
Overheard in SF: Heard inbetween the rabbit squeezing and the carrot munching

Police in North Carolina think they have found a way around the nullification of their state's sodomy laws...
Posted by spatula on Jul. 07, 2003 21:41 UTC
20 comments from readers. Join the discussion!

Someone on the police force in Charlotte, North Carolina had a problem: it's no longer permitted to arrest people for "sodomy" in that state, because the Supreme Court has ruled that "sodomy" cannot be a crime anymore. What's a redneck cop to do? How can they continue to harass gays now?

Simple! Arrest them for planning to engage in "sodomy" instead! How perfectly reasonable! After all, the Supreme Court didn't rule that planning to engage in "sodomy" was OK, right?

You might think I'm exaggerating, but that's basically their reasoning.

Now most of us with axons and dendrites can see the obvious problems here. For one thing, if "sodomy" isn't a crime, planning to engage in "sodomy" can hardly be a crime. For another thing, the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and association mean that the North Carolina police aren't permitted to act as thought-police nor speech-police, arresting people for their private discussions. Further, it isn't too much of a stretch to presume that as sex is a private matter outside the reach of the government's arms then semi-private discussions about sex between individuals aren't any of the government's concern either.

Haven't these cops got anything better to do?

---Nick

Find similar articles

Enter an alias. If your chosen alias is already registered, you will be prompted to enter another one. Maximum length: 40 characters. HTML not allowed.

If you are registered, enter your password to be logged in.
Keep me logged in on this computer
Enter your message. Some HTML is permitted including the p,br,a,strong and em tags. CSS attributes and javascript are not allowed. You may leave blank lines to denote paragraphs or use the paragraph tag. If you use the paragraph tag for one paragraph, you must use it for all of them. Maximum length is 8192 characters.

Press the Post button to post your message now, or use the Preview button to preview your posting. If you used any HTML, you must preview once before posting.

Posted by mxlm on Jul. 08, 2003 24:30

see, this is why I say the rest of the country needs to secede from the south. They can keep their anti-gay, anti-black, anti-semetic bigotry, and we can keep all the blacks and gays and jews and atheists. Problem solved

Embley: Sounds good to me.

Posted by sIr-watermelon on Jul. 08, 2003 05:40

And to think I grew up near there...

Posted by Space Butler from Eastern Canada on Jul. 08, 2003 06:06

From the linked article: A spokesperson for the department said police will no longer arrest people they suspect are meeting in public and agreeing to have anal or oral sex in a home or another private place. [Emphasis mine.]

I can't find anything in the article stating that they're arresting people for planning to engage in "sodomy", and the above quote would seem to directly contradict that statement. What am I missing?

spatula: "But police officials say the Supreme Court decision involved two men who were...

Space Butler: Ah, I see; I read that differently than you did. Given the statement I quoted...

spatula: The article is indeed confusing; I don't think it's your fault or mine. It...

Space Butler: I agree. As I mentioned in a post below, too, the simple presence of the...

Lazerface01: Crime against nature???? Is that on the lawbooks? Their ugly faces are worse...

spatula: Not anymore it's not.

Lazerface01: yay!! Oh yeah now that acknowledging homosexuals have sex is legal....the...

Reynard: Great! They've finally managed to drag themselves from the 16th Century into...

Posted by Not Registered Yet on Jul. 08, 2003 06:46

I think the point their trying to make is that sex in public is still illegal regardless of whether it is gay or straight sex. So, police will continue to 'fish' in parks and popular places where people have sex in public.

Undoubtedly there will be bigoted cops using this loophole to arrest gays in particular, but since when is "bigoted cop abuses technicality" news?

I think this article is a bit overspun by the writer.

If you're missing anything it's the fact that Nick (like many of us) is human and doesn't always catch things like this on the first read.

lucretio: It didn't address solicitation of a crime against nature in public, they say,...

Space Butler: It sounds like they think sodomy is a crime, but that they just can't arrest...

Not Registered Yet: Ah... I missed that 'crime against nature' bit. Still, I'm not arguing against...

spatula: I don't think it's your fault. The article is confusing.

Nadi: It's funny, but I've always thought the phrase "crime against nature" should...

spatula: It would be more apropos! Lovely to see you again, Nadi!

Posted by libc on Jul. 09, 2003 09:24

I found two articles on the site sodomylaws.org discussing whether invalidation of state sodomy laws also invalidates laws prohibiting public solicitation to engage in private sodomy. Both articles predate the recent Supreme Court decision.

Here are the links:

(1) Discussion of Maryland law: This article discusses a Maryland court case holding that a solicitation law that, on its face, applies equally to gay and straight persons is not unconstitutional, even if the state does not prohibit private sodomy. The article also discusses a New York case that concluded the opposite, at least when the solicitation was inoffensive. Although the New York case involved a solicitation law that, unlike the Maryland law, applied only to persons of the same gender, the New York court did not seem to rule on that basis.

(2) Hisotry of Ohio solicitation statute: This article discusses the history of the repeal of Ohio's sodomy law and how that repeal may have prompted the enactment of Ohio's solicitation statute.

We won't know what the federal Constitution requires unless the Supreme Court has the opportunity to rule on a case.