Get back, Dan Savage, you don't know me like that.

Didn't we already know that having sex in public was not protected by the first amendment?

It sounds like if this hotel hadn't been hosting the noisy, fighty parties, the swingers might have been left alone. I think those swingers need to find a better class of hotel.

"“Nothing about the Liquor Control investigation … prevents or punishes any expressive advocacy of the ‘swingers’ lifestyle,’ which still may flourish on websites and through other advertising,” Shea wrote."

Oh sure, you can talk about it, just don't DO it.

"'The sexual activity the Liquor Control agents described observing in the Hotel bar on November 8, 2008…. is not constitutionally protected speech,' Shea wrote. "

But why is it not Constitutionally protected free assembly? Anyone?

People like this need a private venue. Maybe they could get a corporate sponsor like whoever makes herpes meds.

This isn't speech, it's conduct that's at issue. The analysis for conduct protected by the First Amendment is difference than the analysis for speech. Also, it is within the police power of the state to regulate conduct, especially for the purpose of public safety. I would like to see more details about the parties before commenting further.

@7: " I would like to see more details about the parties before commenting further."

Spoiler alert: People have sex in public.

You already have an opinion, why pretend at neutrality?

Text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Wikipedia:
“Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958), that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."”

Sounds covered to me. But what do I know. I’m not catholic.

Should also be covered by the fourth and fourteenth amendments and others which have been interpreted as guaranteeing a right to privacy. (See unconstitutionality of sodomy laws.)

The real question is: are they protected by the second amendment?

Oral sex in the bar. And there's pictures?

The judge went on to say that the master-slave relationships of the BDSM group observed by the Liquor Control Agent were banded by the Thirteenth Amendment.

"talking with your mouth full isn't protected under the First Amendment". I thought the point of the case is that it depends on what your mouth is full of.

@9: No reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, like a hotel lobby. (Yes, a hotel lobby is a public space because it serves the public.) This is why sex is legal in your house but not on the sidewalk downtown.

@14: To be fair. this may have been in closed-off convention areas so a reasonable right to privacy.

@16: "The First Amendment APPLIES (they are assembling and speaking, presumably, too), but not to the LURID bits"

So behavior you disapprove of is unlawful assembly/speech. Got it!