"This is the first time Craig's attorneys have raised that issue. However, an earlier friend-of-the-court filing by the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Craig's foot-tapping and hand gesture under a stall divider at the Minneapolis airport are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech."

Fascinating in a number of ways. First, I wonder what Craig thinks of the ACLU.

Second, the argument seems to be that he has a right to make a proposition for gay sex in a public place. That's difficult to reconcile with the argument he's not at least bisexual. Powerful admission.

Third, is it "free speech" to solicit anyone else to engage in an illegal act, i.e. sexual activity in a public place.

On the surface it seems to me that he's digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. A reversal based upon these arguments wouldn't necessarily help him with the Senate Ethics Committee, however. They only need to consider whether he has adversely affected the Senate by his behavior. "Conduct unbecoming", etc.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Arf