ACLU files interesting brief in Craig case

McClatchy-Tribune/Houston Chronicle:

...

The ACLU's brief argues the government can make arrests for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond a doubt that the sex was to occur in public.

The ACLU argues that solicitation for sex in a private place is protected speech under the First Amendment, no matter where the solicitation occurs.

The sting operation used by Minneapolis airport police was unconstitutional and was so broad that innocent people could be caught up in it, said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

"It is not a crime to solicit sex that would occur in private," Romero said. "It is a crime to solicit sex that would occur in a public place. What the state failed to show was that Senator Craig clearly expected to have sex in public."

The ACLU brief also argues that there are plenty of less-invasive ways for law enforcement to stop nuisance behavior, such as posting signs warning people that sex is banned in the restroom and sending in uniformed officers to patrol.

That argument does nothing to rehabilitate Craig's political situation, but I agree with their recommendation in the last paragraph. Which is more likely to deter the objectionable conduct?