First, these arguments have all been waived by Craig's failure to make them before pleading guilty.  They don't show that his plea was coerced or uninformed.  And establishing that there is a "basis in fact" for accepting a plea pursuant to a plea bargain doesn't require the court to raise, sua sponte, and then reject, every conceivable argument as to why the statute defining the crime might be unconstitutional as applied.  Nothing in this brief, in other words, applies to setting the plea aside.

Secondly, the ACLU is making arguments that Craig emphatically will deny apply to him.  He emphatically denies that he was engaged in any kind of conduct-as-speech that's protected by the First Amendment.  That would require him to admit that he was cruising for sex.  Instead, his factual argument is that he was only looking for an empty stall, that his foot tapping had no meaning, that his foot rubbing was an accident, that he was picking up a piece of paper from the floor.