"A government may constitutionally prohibit such speech if there is 'a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.' " they said, citing a previous case.

"Offensive speech may be prohibited as intrusive when the 'captive' audience cannot avoid the speech. ... A person using a restroom stall is such a 'captive' audience with substantial privacy interests that would be intolerably invaded even by communications less potentially offensive than sexual solicitations.

"Thus, even if appellant's foot-tapping and the movement of his foot towards the undercover officer's stall are considered 'speech,' they would be intrusive speech directed at a captive audience, and the government may prohibit them."

CNN notes the Senate Ethics Committee letter of admonition to Craig:

The committee also criticized Craig for using more than $200,000 from campaign funds to pay legal fees related to his case and for flashing his Senate business card at the officer who arrested him. The letter said that move could be seen as an improper attempt to receive "special and favorable treatment."