Larry Craig

I have to count myself among those who are saying, in the wake of the Larry Craig scandal, "how is that a crime??" First, let me clear some fluff out of the way: Craig needs to get the hell out of office for multiple independent reasons. Chiefly, in my mind, though it hasn't gotten a lot of play in the 'sphere, is the reason the gov't used to give for monitoring its agents and officers: risk of blackmail. (This was back when there were a few shreds of competence scattered around the federal government). All it takes is one 'anonymous' partner to notice that the head frantically bobbing around his crotch is a U.S. Senator and you've got a powerful legislator literally by the balls. Other reasons include reliability: the man pled guilty and then pretended he was railroaded into it; (really? a Senator doesn't understand a citizen's rights?) and it turns out that he deliberately set himself up to back out of resigning, too! He's also a raging hypocrite etc.

But if he wasn't Larry Craig, but, say, Harry Craigson, local barber, could freedom-minded people really be comfortable with this arrest? Read the report! I don't really want to dig into the details, though I certainly will if anyone doesn't follow my reasoning. But basically Craig put out a few mild feelers to see if the officer was interested in a random encounter (in a bathroom known for such things); the officer responded with appropriate signals; and then as an only-marginally-bolder move, Craig moved his fingertips back and forth under the stall. Arrest! Misdemeanor disorderly conduct! I am not comfortable with that. Far too statist and totalitarian. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what Craig was doing per se, anymore than making eyes and suggestive poses in a bar to proposition someone is disorderly. (Note that such advances are often unwelcome, but we don't arrest people for making them unless they don't back off after being told.) Are we really such a nanny state now that we can't even expect adults to tell very mildly assertive perverts to back off??!

As a very interesting historical comparison, consider how the Navy sought out secret bottoms in its ranks around the 1920s. This is fascinating (via Aaron Belkin at WaPo, h/t Ramesh Ponnuru at the Corner):

In 1919 the Navy hired "decoys" to frequent the lobby of the YMCA in Newport, R.I. Orchestrated by officers at the local Naval Training Station, the cleanup campaign sought to eliminate gay men from the ranks. Following an introduction, decoys would accompany their suspects to a hotel room and then have sex. At least three dozen sailors and civilians were arrested, and many ended up in jail. According to conventions of the day, if men confined themselves to masculine behaviors and sex roles, they could engage in sex with other men without inviting accusations of being gay. Because perversion was seen primarily as a function of effeminate mannerisms and passive sexual tastes, government decoys could have sex with gay men with impunity as long as they assumed the active position during those encounters. Or so the Navy assumed.

When the 1919 sting operation ensnared a local minister, the Episcopal Church fought back, and what had been a local operation became a national scandal that almost ended the burgeoning political career of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was then assistant secretary of the Navy.

There were a couple reasons I wanted to post that: one, I think it's just fascinating; and two, I think it's another reminder that to convict someone of a sexual offense we usually require going pretty damn far down the road towards sex. Also compare how prostitute stings work - you need to negotiate and agree to a price for a specific sexual service before a crime is comitted.