Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Right to Be a Sleazebag
Jack McClellan was arrested in Los Angeles yesterday for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Well, officially he was arrested for violating a restraining order that forbids him to come within 10 yards of any minor in California. But the restraining order was issued based on his public discussion (online, on TV, and in print) of his sexual attraction to little girls, coupled with the perfectly legal photographs of (clothed) girls that he took in public places and posted on his now-defunct website (which was shut down by the company that provided his server space due to public complaints). McClellan, who has never been convicted of a sex crime, says he has never acted on his impulses and will not as long as doing so remains illegal. According to Fox News, he "said he created the Web site to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls."
McClellan, then, has not done anything illegal; he has not even advocated doing anything illegal (which also would be protected speech, unless it was intended and likely to result in "imminent lawless action"). He may be perverted (not to mention stupid), and he is probably not an ideal babysitter. But his situation is analogous to that of a neo-Nazi who says Hitler had the right idea and wants Congress to take legislative cues from the Third Reich. Both are despicable and unpopular, but well-loved people who say uncontroversial things have no need for the First Amendment. Were it not for the hysteria about allegedly rampant sexual abuse of children by wandering predators, the parallel would be obvious to everyone (or at least to the judge who issued the restraining order).
UCLA law professor (and reason contributor) Eugene Volokh tells the Los Angeles Times the injunction against McClellan won't "stand up as a means to keep him away from children." He adds:
If he takes pictures of kids in public view, they cannot stop him. He may be a guy to be concerned about, but it is not enough....This man is obsessed with this. He is willing to ruin his life. It is clearly spooky. But it is legal to advocate pedophilia and not act on it.
The Times mentions that locking up McClellan for violating the court order could be viewed as a kind of preventive detention, which the courts also tend to frown on. Notably, the Supreme Court has made an exception for sex offenders, allowing states to lock them up indefinitely in mental hospitals after they've served their prison terms. Ostensibly, this is "treatment," not preventive detention. Unlike the prisoner in that case, McClellan has not been convicted of any sex crimes. But one of the lawyers who sought the injunction suggests that shouldn't matter, asserting that McClellan "is really sick" and "cannot control his impulses."
|8.15.07 @ 11:24AM|#
"The dilemma for law enforcement is always whether a
particular line has been crossed," said retired Los Angeles Police
Det. Jim Brown, who has investigated hundreds of child molestation
cases. "When these guys molest children, the law is clear. Where
the law gets fuzzy is in the world of pictures and
words."
In other words, the law is clear when you actually commit a crime.
If you don't commit a crime, then it's fuzzy.
Welcome to the police state...
|8.15.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Serious question: is the libertarian position that there should be no restraining orders whatsoever?
|8.15.07 @ 11:26AM|#
And his restraining order is equivalent to one where a Black Panther who is known for writing hate literature is restrained from being within 10 yards of a white person.
|8.15.07 @ 11:30AM|#
Serious question: is the libertarian position that there
should be no restraining orders whatsoever?
I have no objection to restraining orders. They simply need to be
specific, in that they should be issued in order to help protect
one individual from another. They are not a license to evict a
person from an area (especially an area the size of CA, as this
particular order does in effect).
|8.15.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Dan T,
I don't have a problem with restraining orders in response to a
crime having been committed, or someone threatening to commit a
crime.
However, in this particular case, the man has not committed a crime
or threatened to do so.
|8.15.07 @ 11:33AM|#
Dan T,a restraining order needs a complaintant,and some pattern of illegal actions.This case has neither.Truthfully he did everyone a favor by coming out into the light.I doubt he'll get away with much.By the way,most children are harmed by a family member of a close friend.
Brick Cheney|8.15.07 @ 11:36AM|#
How do you avoid being anywhere near minors? Only go out between like 9 and 11 am or something?
|8.15.07 @ 11:37AM|#
Fair enough. Thanks.
I do agree that this restraining order seems almost impossible to
follow if one wants to function in society. Maybe it would be more
acceptable if he wasn't allowed to be alone in the same room as a
minor or something like that?
thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:37AM|#
This is a guy who is doing everything in his power to get as close as possible to the line between legal and illegal, without actually crossing the line. It pisses me off, because he's basically begging people to shift the line.
|8.15.07 @ 11:43AM|#
A restraining order prohibiting a person from being within 10 feet of a minor is absurd, impossible to comply with, and probably unenforceable. I do wonder, though, if the "impossible to comply with" part is the whole idea: make it impossible for him not to commit a crime, and lock him up when he does.
|8.15.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Remember,this has been tried in Texas in a differant way.The cops were aressting people in bars because they might drive drunk.That's the problem.You must protect the scum to protect yourself.
crap-action-jackson|8.15.07 @ 11:47AM|#
John and Ken on KFI have been following this case for months, and have interviewed him several times: they are beginning to speculate that the guy is not actually a pedophile, but that he is using his advocacy of pedophilia to get attention - that is it some sort of stunt or performance.
|8.15.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Considering that he hasn't assaulted (cuddled?) a child yet, I
think McClellan can control his impulses very well.
Seriously disturbing, but not every bad word fits him.
thoreau|8.15.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Fair points: A creepy guy who has controlled his impulses is still a guy who has controlled his impulses.
|8.15.07 @ 11:53AM|#
he's pretty dedicated to his work if he's a performance artist. Doesn't he still live with his mom?
Brian E|8.15.07 @ 11:54AM|#
This is a guy who is doing everything in his power to get as
close as possible to the line between legal and illegal, without
actually crossing the line. It pisses me off, because he's
basically begging people to shift the line.
I think the solution is to simply sock him one in the goddamn face.
Some problems have simpler solutions than involving the law.
|8.15.07 @ 11:55AM|#
This guy is a fucking moron and a weirdo. He even LOOKS like a
child molester.
Having said that, this guy is fast becoming one of my personal
heroes.
|8.15.07 @ 11:56AM|#
I will say that I would not object to making it illegal to take
pictures of children without their parents' permission and then
post them on a web site that exploits them as sexual objects.
I mean, as much as folks here mock the "for the children" argument
you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted to not think we have some duty
to keep young girls from being ranked on websites by their sexual
appeal.
wsdave|8.15.07 @ 11:56AM|#
crap-action,
"...but that he is using his advocacy of pedophilia to get
attention..."
My take as well. Who here will buy his book or watch his
documentary about how unfairly the government treats people who
haven't committed a crime?
dhex|8.15.07 @ 11:59AM|#
"It pisses me off, because he's basically begging people to
shift the line."
he's basically begging someone to kill him.
ktc2|8.15.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Hate him all you like, shun him, repudiate him publically and loudly but till he breaks the law he has the same rights as everyone else.
|8.15.07 @ 12:02PM|#
"The Right to Be a Sleazebag" - he also has the "Right to Remain
Silent"... and should exercise THAT right, if he's going to
exercise the other one.
CB
|8.15.07 @ 12:10PM|#
".... A trial date was set for Sept. 11."
I just hope the girl is old enough to date by then.
CB
|8.15.07 @ 12:15PM|#
If this guy is seriously ill...and will one day break down and
hurt a child will it all be worth it? He hurts the child, gets
arrested and put away for god knows how long; but that child still
gets hurt. As a new parent...I can't fathom it. Keep him away. Bar
him from owning any cameras or recording devices. Punch him in the
face (which is probably what he really wants to happen as
well).
There can't be any laws that would advocate allowing a child (I
guess that could go for anyone, but ESPECIALLY a child) to be hurt
in the name of upholding said law. I know that there are lines and
slippery slopes and all that - but go have a kid; and then know
that they can be exposed to this in the slightest way, then get
back to me.
Renegade|8.15.07 @ 12:15PM|#
If he is taking pictures of children without permission, isn't that an invasion of privacy? Am I allowed to take pictures of my hot blond neighbor jogging and post it on the internet along with lewd comments?
Scooby|8.15.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Renegade,
Your neighbor does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy
while being bouncy-bouncy in the street. It's a different story if
you were peeping in her window.
|8.15.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Yes your allowed to take pics.A whole industry in Hollywood is built on it.Their called tabloids.
|8.15.07 @ 12:24PM|#
But his situation is analogous to that of a neo-Nazi who
says Hitler had the right idea and wants Congress to take
legislative cues from the Third Reich.
Actually, it's more analogous to that of a neo-Nazi who says that
Hitler had the right idea and wants gangs of stormtroopers to burn
down synagogues, and whose web postings urge his readers to become
familiar with the location of the temples, the people who attend
them, and their schedules.
He's not just arguing about what Congress should do, but about the
goodness of pedophilia. Which is, indeed, perfectly legal. Arguing
with your ex-girlfriend in perfectly legal, too. If your pervious
behavior, even if not criminal, is enough to convince a judge that
you are a physical threat to her, then it is right for that judge
to enjoin you from coming within 100' of her.
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Michael Pack:
A pedantic aside--you usually have well-informed and intelligent
posts. Why the terrible grammar, spelling, and punctuation? Is
English not your first language?
I'm not trying to be a dick--I think your posts would be more
effective if they were more easily readable.
|8.15.07 @ 12:27PM|#
I wonder if he's consciously dressing likeErnie to appeal to the
Sesame Street age group?
I don't know exactly what should be done about a creep like this
guy. I think it's unfair to place a restraining order on him that
he can't realistically abide by, but at the same time, I'm
uncomfortable taking him at his word that he won't act on his urges
so long as his doing so is illegal.
|8.15.07 @ 12:28PM|#
BTW, for all the "impossibility" of complying with the
restraining order, the guy wasn't arrested because he passed a
mother with children while walking down the street.
He went into the one building on a college campus that had a
daycare center, where he knew there was a daycare center after
having gotten in trouble for lurking there before.
|8.15.07 @ 12:28PM|#
bromo98, I understand your feelings, but you can't just eliminate someone's rights just because you don't feel good about it. If we could put people away that make us feel creepy, I would be able to put away all the people that think a law should be allowed to pass as long as you said that "it's for the children."
|8.15.07 @ 12:30PM|#
It makes much more sense to just outlaw posting pictures of minors without their parents' permission. That restraining order was so broad it was meaningless.
|8.15.07 @ 12:30PM|#
David,
A lot of pedophiles relate to children, not only sexually, but in
their personalities, maturity levels, and tastes. He probably
dresses like Ernie because his personal tastes in clothing are
those that the Sesame Street designers chose for their appeal to
children.
|8.15.07 @ 12:35PM|#
BTW, for all the "impossibility" of complying with the
restraining order, the guy wasn't arrested because he passed a
mother with children while walking down the street.
So what? that doesn't change the fact that the restraining order,
as it is written would allow him to be arrested by waling down the
street and passing a mother with children.
This guy hasn't done anything illegal nor is he threatening to do
anything illegal. In fact he is saying that he will not do anything
illegal.
Whether you believe him or not, nothing he has done justifies what
is happening to him -- regardless of how fucking creepy and stupid
you and I personally find this guy.
|8.15.07 @ 12:36PM|#
I do not type well,I admit and sometimes I'm posting and busy with other work.This is the first site I've ever posted on,I bought a PC about 8 years ago for buisness,not personal.I found this site refreshing and fun.I'll try to do better.In my defence,you will never see me call names or resort to insults to make a point.My job requires the spoken word,not the written.I am good with numbers though.
|8.15.07 @ 12:38PM|#
It makes much more sense to just outlaw posting pictures of
minors without their parents' permission.
How does this make more sense?? How does this make any sense?
If I want to post on my blog about what a great neighborhood for
families I live in and I take pictures of kids playing at a local
park to back up those assertions, I should have to get permission
of the parents?
|8.15.07 @ 12:40PM|#
ChicagoTom,
I agree, the language should be tightened up to forbid only overt
acts, such as approaching children or failing to remove himself if
he finds himself in proximity to them. As written, he would be in
violation if he turned a corner, bumped into a kid, and immediately
left.
The police seem to have used some common sense, and busted him for
exactly such an overt act*, but I agree, the common sense should be
in black and white on the page, too.
In fact he is saying that he will not do anything illegal.
Oh, all right then. Why don't you hire him to baby-sit your
children? And no, that has nothing to do with personal feelings
about him, but with the likelihood of his behavior.
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Michael (Micheal?),
You don't need to apologize, you have no responsibility to anyone
to type well. I just wanted to suggest that you could be more
effective with better gammar and spelling.
|8.15.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Anyone who has ever worked as a phorographer knows that you can't run pictures of kids without getting a waiver signed by their guardian. Not even to show how popular the playground is.
|8.15.07 @ 12:42PM|#
jtuf,If you outlaw posting without consent you'll outlaw the news.Remember pics of Brittney and her baby?
|8.15.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Why don't you hire him to baby-sit your children?
That's simply not a relevant angle. It's perfectly legitimate to
socially ostracize this person. It's not, however, legitimate to do
that using the power of the state.
jimmydageek|8.15.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Let's say I decide to become a vocal proponent for the use of
marijuana. I go on and on about how good it can be, etc, but I
don't actually smoke any currently (based on past experiences). I
tell people that they should try it someday and see for themselves
how great it can be.
Based on several comments here, I should be hit with a restraining
order keeping me at a distance from drug dealers, even though I
will never smoke the stuff as long as it remains illegal. How do
you even consider such a proposal to be a good idea?
|8.15.07 @ 1:02PM|#
Sure Marcvs and I agree on the principle of the whole thing. But
we have laws about 'attempted murder' not just for 'murder' and
anyone who wants to have a drink in one of several jurisdictions
knows that even if they are not above the legal impaired limit they
may face sanctions if pulled over.
I just believe that it's OK to prevent a child from being harmed. I
don't really care what it's called. And you're right, there is no
basis for it. It is a slippery slope. It is unfair to other similar
situations. But I don't care. Not when it comes to my child. In
this case better to put THIS (I won't even bother to generalize)
dumbass who might never commit a crime away (or at least on watch)
than to put even 1 child in jeopardy from something that was
preventable.
ed|8.15.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I'd add that any over-the-hill mom who dresses her 5-year-old up as a prostitute and drags her from city to city hoping for fame and fortune as a miniature beauty queen is more reprehensible and no less guilty of bad taste and child endangerment than McClellan. America always wants to have its cake and eat it too.
SxCx|8.15.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Christ...all creepiness aside, I find this man's alleged
sincerity fascinating. I mean, honestly: could it be, despite our
reservations, that this guy simply wants to hang out and "get
close" with kids and not coerce them into doing anything they're
uncomfortable with?
I've read some arguments that claim pedophilia is a sexual
orientation, not a disorder, and that murdering/abusing child
molesters are a completely different breed. The same people claim
it will one day be vindicated like homosexuality. While I'm very
hesitant to validate any of that, I also can't help but think of
the strangely incurable nature of many sexual disorders.
I don't know, surely I'm not the only one who's pondered this?
Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 1:06PM|#
The entire idea of making it illegal to take pictures of
children is moronic.
That means that I could essentially bar photographers from public
places simply by having some children hang out there.
Want to film a picket line? Nope, sorry, I've got some rent-a-kids
in your way. Want to film the police beating up some protest
marchers? Nope, sorry, these kids over here don't consent.
Want to take a picture of your own family at Disney World? Nope, no
can do, there are kids in the background taking up 3 or 4 pixels of
space and they won't sign a waiver.
cls|8.15.07 @ 1:09PM|#
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H.L. Mencken
|8.15.07 @ 1:10PM|#
MP has it exactly right.
This fellow hasn't done anything. He's only said
some very disturbing things. Things would be very different if he
had a prior record.
Bromo, you're free to keep your kid(s) away from him, but don't
expect the police to do that job for you.
|8.15.07 @ 1:29PM|#
MP,
The "angle" of my comment is that there actually is a rational,
defensible reason to restrict this person's actions, and not just a
feeling that he's icky.
Fluffy,
The kids have to be individually recognizeable for it to be a
privacy invasion. You can take shots of crowds of people all you
want.
|8.15.07 @ 1:35PM|#
In my defence,you will never see me call names or resort to
insults to make a point.
Me either, but with the specific exception of Edward, Juanita/Jane,
and...
DooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnndeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Well Joe, the fact that the kids are in public means that it has
nothing to do with privacy in the first place.
In addition, there would be no way to measure "recognizability" in
any consistent way. If there's a crowd of people in the background
and their faces are visible, that certainly makes for a presumption
of recognizability in my book. And I just don't think you should
get to control my right to photograph a public place by sticking
your kid's ugly mug in it.
|8.15.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Lord knows that it isn't insulting to be told that you don't
care if your neighbors are being slaughtered.
And as for Eric constantly accusing people of cowardice, I think
that's actually a compliment.
|8.15.07 @ 1:41PM|#
Fluffy,
Nope. The law is very clear on that point. For a private person -
and not a public figure - to go out in public is not the equivalent
of granting his permission for his image to broadcast in the
media.
In addition, there would be no way to measure "recognizability"
in any consistent way.
Oh, please. There is no way to measure "cruel and unusual," "just,"
or "undue burdern" in any consistent sense, either. So what? Those
are all standards in our legal and constitutioanl system.
|8.15.07 @ 1:59PM|#
but go have a kid; and then know that they can be exposed to
this in the slightest way, then get back to me.
I have one kid. I am about to pick up 2 more by marriage. Is my
opinion relevant now?
As far as anyone knows, this guy has done nothing to break the law.
I would not let him be around my kids, but he should not be thrown
in jail for what he says or thinks.
Fluffy|8.15.07 @ 2:03PM|#
"Nope. The law is very clear on that point. For a private person
- and not a public figure - to go out in public is not the
equivalent of granting his permission for his image to broadcast in
the media."
Cite me the law, please. And in New York State or some state other
than California, which doesn't count.
Ayn_Randian|8.15.07 @ 2:03PM|#
don't really care what it's called. And you're right, there
is no basis for it. It is a slippery slope. It is unfair to other
similar situations. But I don't care. Not when it comes to my
child.
So, basically you're OK with liberty, except for your personal
hobby horse, in which case, the rules go out the window.
Really, what you meant was "I don't give a shit about liberty at
all."
Just wanted to get that cleared up.
|8.15.07 @ 2:09PM|#
Cite me the law, please. And in New York State or some state
other than California, which doesn't count.
Fluffy,
I can't cite the law right this second, but I do remember being to
this in photojournalism classes in college. Something related to
libel or public defamation. Or something.
If only I could remember more than 10% of what I learned in
class...
|8.15.07 @ 2:11PM|#
:) i guess....
I'm stirring the pot here, I know...but I just can't come down on
this guys' side whatsoever. He's not just saying "maybe it's ok to
be attracted to kids" he's proving thru his actions that he will
take pictures and post them and says it's ok to come into contact
with kids not your own in a non-sexual way ("snuggling"). If he
truly is sick, someone is going to get hurt. And the position on
this board is as soon as he hurts someone THEN we can lock him up,
but only the individual parents can prevent it from being their
kid. Sorry - that's the easy way out.
I'd love to get all upset about infringements on liberty, but not
in the case of people hurting kids in a sexualized way. Call it a
carve out or whatever you want, I won't lose any sleep that this
guy is off the streets or is being watched by the police state.
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Well, bromo, that's why you are the exact kind of person who is
an enemy of liberty. You are so smugly proud of it, too, which just
shows that you are more committed to emotion than reason.
It's people like you who chip away at all of our liberties, year
after year, hyped up by idiotic media reports and not thinking but
only reacting.
It would be suprememly just if you eventually got arrested for some
innocent act like taking pictures of your own kids and their
friends for breaking some "zero-tolerance" liberty-destroying law
that you yourself supported.
|8.15.07 @ 2:27PM|#
In this case better to put THIS (I won't even bother to generalize) dumbass who might never commit a crime away (or at least on watch) than to put even 1 child in jeopardy from something that was preventable.
The number one cause of death among children ages 3-14 is motor
vehicle accidents, with almost 2,000 children killed every year
(along with almost 40,000 adults). Is your freedom to drive to the
grocery store whenever you want worth the life of one child, much
less 2,000?
|8.15.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Well, bromo, that's why you are the exact kind of person who
is an enemy of liberty. You are so smugly proud of it, too, which
just shows that you are more committed to emotion than
reason.
In bromo's defense, the notion that liberty is the most important
thing in the world is also as much an emotional idea as a
reasonable one.
|8.15.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Sorry - that's the easy way out.
The easy way out is to shoot him in the head.
The hard way out is to tolerate his legal actions.
|8.15.07 @ 2:31PM|#
they are beginning to speculate that the guy is not actually
a pedophile, but that he is using his advocacy of pedophilia to get
attention - that is it some sort of stunt or
performance.
A pedophilia troll? The Dan T. of pedophilia?
(My apologies in advance to Dan T. for the snarkiness, who seems to
be trying harder to ask intelligent questions lately.)
|8.15.07 @ 2:39PM|#
I will say that I would not object to making it illegal to
take pictures of children without their parents' permission and
then post them on a web site that exploits them as sexual
objects.
I mean, as much as folks here mock the "for the children" argument
you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted to not think we have some duty
to keep young girls from being ranked on websites by their sexual
appeal.
So, Dan T., you advocate making it illegal to take pictures of
fully clothed young girls/women in public places and then posting
those pictures on a website and using speech protected by the First
Amendment to rate their attractiveness? While such a website seems
creepy, it's not half as creepy as the idea of giving politicians
and bureaucrats the ability to further chip away at free speech,
instead of, oh, parents making sure their children are modestly and
unprovocatively dressed before going out into public?
But, kudos for asking a non-trollish question, Dan.
|8.15.07 @ 2:40PM|#
I feel bad for pedophiles, especially the ones who don't act on their impulses. Whenever I hear anything about pedophiles, all I can think of is how glad I am I don't get those impulses in the first place. I'm sure they feel their urges as strongly as I feel my urges for grown ass women, and if I happened to get the impulses that made me the lowest of the low and a pariah, I'd feel pretty cursed.
|8.15.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Violating a protective order is illegal.
Violating an ill-conceived protective order is moral.
|8.15.07 @ 2:46PM|#
So, Dan T., you advocate making it illegal to take pictures
of fully clothed young girls/women in public places and then
posting those pictures on a website and using speech protected by
the First Amendment to rate their attractiveness? While such a
website seems creepy, it's not half as creepy as the idea of giving
politicians and bureaucrats the ability to further chip away at
free speech, instead of, oh, parents making sure their children are
modestly and unprovocatively dressed before going out into
public?
I guess the answer is yes, and I find it odd that somehow this
whole thing is the parents' fault, once again.
Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, and I'd submit
that the protection of children in this case supercedes the right
of adults to publicly objectify them.
But, kudos for asking a non-trollish question, Dan.
Thanks, and in return I appreciate the fair treatment from
everybody I've received here in recent days.
|8.15.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Nope. The law is very clear on that point. For a private
person - and not a public figure - to go out in public is not the
equivalent of granting his permission for his image to broadcast in
the media.
joe, care to post the exact language of this law you say is so very
clear, and where it can be found in the law? Because you'll pardon
me if, based on your past assertions, I don't take every assertion
you make on face value. How does this alleged law distinguish
between a private person and a public person? Is there some sort of
sharp, unambiguous dividing line between the two written into
law?
Egon|8.15.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Here's something no one seems to mention when the discussion turns to "taking pictures and posting them online": What about Flickr.com and Snapfish et al? Should it be illegal for me to post pictures of my own children on a publicly accessible website, on the basis that someone MIGHT jerk off to them?
|8.15.07 @ 2:52PM|#
Fluffy,
What Taktix said, except I lack his breadth of knowledge.
MP,
Violating an ill-conceived protective order is moral. The
phrase you used was "tolerate his legal actions." His approach to
that daycare center (if the facts are as prestented - I learned my
lesson about that when the Brits assassinated that innocent
Brazilian guy) was not legal.
|8.15.07 @ 2:55PM|#
jh,
If you're that curious, look up the law yourself. You can find out
I'm right about this widely known fact that is brought up in
first-year journalism and law classes, or not. Whatever.
How does this alleged law distinguish between a private person
and a public person? Is there some sort of sharp, unambiguous
dividing line between the two written into law?
I don't recall the language used in the law. I believe it is a
common-sense definition, comparable to "just compensation" or
"cruel and unusual." A public officeholder or moview star is
presumed to be a public figure, while some ordinary guy and his
daughter are not. A judge is presumed to be a public figure.
|8.15.07 @ 2:56PM|#
instead of, oh, parents making sure their children are modestly and unprovocatively dressed before going out into public?
|8.15.07 @ 2:57PM|#
you are more committed to emotion than reason
I don't agree with bromo at all, but I don't consider the above
statement to be any sort of insult. Relying exclusively on emotions
in order to perceive the world is a silly way to live, but so is
relying exclusively on reason.
|8.15.07 @ 2:58PM|#
instead of, oh, parents making sure their children are
modestly and unprovocatively dressed before going out into
public?
jh,
What would even mean in the context of a pedophile? It's not the
clothes that they're attracted to.
Apologies for the double post, my question disappeared the first
time.
|8.15.07 @ 2:59PM|#
The phrase you used was "tolerate his legal actions." His
approach to that daycare center (if the facts are as prestented - I
learned my lesson about that when the Brits assassinated that
innocent Brazilian guy) was not legal.
It was only illegal because a judge decided to issue an
ill-conceived protective order because he was intolerant of this
pedophile's legal actions.
|8.15.07 @ 3:00PM|#
joe -- When I ran for office, I took pictures of my kids playing
with other kids, and put them in campaign brochures. According to
you, this is illegal, since I didn't get the consent of the other
parents. Please explain why my opponent, who wasted no opportunity
to hammer me with hit pieces on the flimsiest pretext, didn't go
after me for this alleged violation of the law that you haven't yet
given a reference to?
I can see a law prohibiting the commercial use of such photos of
children, such as pasting them on soup can labels to move soup, but
on a site that is basically advocating a change in the laws (albeit
a really creepy and disturbing change)?
I mean, this guy isn't half as creepy as NAMBLA.
And yes, I do have young children, who I make a point of not
letting out in public scantily dressed.
|8.15.07 @ 3:03PM|#
The easy way out is to shoot him in the head.
The hard way out is to tolerate his legal actions.
Unfortunately the easy way out comes with too high a price.
The reason that I think the easy way out is to tolerate him is
because it requires no thought. "Oh, well, it's speech so we can't
go against the first amendment." That's a cop-out.
I go back to the fact that a child has to get hurt before
something can be done to prevent this guy from harming
more. One child harmed in this manner is too high a price.
Why is it wrong to think about a way in which children can be
protected from someone like this while the intentions of free
speech and freedom are upheld?
|8.15.07 @ 3:05PM|#
instead of, oh, parents making sure their children are
modestly and unprovocatively dressed before going out into
public?
jh,
What would even mean in the context of a pedophile? It's not the
clothes that they're attracted to.
I'm not familiar with the psychology of pedophiles, but common
sense should tell you that allowing your kids to go out tarted up
and dressed like Bratz dolls might make them more of a target for
pedophiles than if they were dressed modeestly. At least, that is
the working assumption I'm using when I decide whether my kids are
dressed appropriately.
|8.15.07 @ 3:06PM|#
McClellan isn't someone who needs to be around children, but if
I read all of this correctly he hasn't committed a crime, besides
violating the impossible-to-enforce restraining order placed on
him, nor has he advocated committing a crime.
I'm sure an actual lawyer could offer a more compelling opinion,
but it seems to me that since this guy hasn't broken any laws
regarding the assault of children, keeping him locked up on the
pretense that he may at some time hurt a child is on shaky legal
ground at best.
"Save The Children™" hysteria will reach nuclear meltdown level on
this one, though- I am almost sure of that.
LibertyPlease|8.15.07 @ 3:10PM|#
"Remember,this has been tried in Texas in a differant
way.The cops were aressting people in bars because they might drive
drunk.That's the problem.You must protect the scum to protect
yourself."
This pre-crime effort was well intentioned also, and it took
witnessing the disastrous results before anyone took action against
it.
|8.15.07 @ 3:12PM|#
One child harmed in this manner is too high a price.
Why is it wrong to think about a way in which children can be
protected from someone like this while the intentions of free
speech and freedom are upheld?
Here we go. Look, you can scream and rant that's it's For the
Children™ all you want. It is unreasonable to preemptively punish
people for crimes they might commit, and it is unequally
unreasonable to assert that laser-guided laws will be able to
restrict activities like taking pictures of children in public
places to an extent that only those people who have a prurient
interest in viewing such pictures will be encumbered by the
law.
I go back to the fact that a child has to get hurt before
something can be done to prevent this guy from harming
more.
Did you miss the part about how McClellan hasn't, you know,
actually put his hands on a child or attempted to do so?
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 3:14PM|#
"Save The Children™" hysteria will reach nuclear meltdown
level on this one, though- I am almost sure of that.
bromo is already there, dude.
|8.15.07 @ 3:19PM|#
The reason that I think the easy way out is to tolerate him
is because it requires no thought. "Oh, well, it's speech so we
can't go against the first amendment." That's a cop-out.
Although the First Amendment is the highest protector of this
person's rights (in this instance), the position is not simply
"Well, he must be defended because the Constitution says so."
The position, in fact, is that a person shouldn't be prosecuted for
what they might do, particularly when that person has
never voiced an intention of actually doing it. It's one thing to
arrest someone for conspiracy to commit murder when they've
contracted with an assassin. It's quite another to arrest them for
posting "I hate my wife".
|8.15.07 @ 3:20PM|#
bromo is already there, dude.
You're right about that. Perhaps it can be stymied, though. I
hope.
jimmydageek|8.15.07 @ 3:25PM|#
bromo,
Since turning 18, or whatever the age of consent in your state is,
have you ever found a 16 or 17 year old girl attractive? If so, did
you have sexual fantasies or thoughts about this person? If you
have, you should be arrested for what you might have done.
poco|8.15.07 @ 3:28PM|#
Everybody knows this guy's name, face, whereabouts, and
predilections now, which is helpful in avoiding him.
The advantage of letting idiots speak their piece is easier
identification of said idiots.
robc|8.15.07 @ 3:33PM|#
On the issue of photos in public, wasnt there laws being passed
a few years ago to ban "upskirt" and "downblouse" photos? They were
considered "public" photos and were okay to publish before the laws
changed (at least in some places). Based on vague memories of that,
I would say that publishing (non-commercially) photos of people in
public would be legal.
But, unlike the rest of you challenging each other, I will try to
actually google for an answer.
|8.15.07 @ 3:34PM|#
The "angle" of my comment is that there actually is a
rational, defensible reason to restrict this person's actions, and
not just a feeling that he's icky.
joe,
Please tell us what the rational defensible reason to restrict this
person's actions is?
You snark at the "he said he won't act upon it" comment, but as of
right now I find this guy pretty fucking credible.
He hasn't been dishonest about anything. In fact it is his over the
top honesty that seems to have gotten him in trouble. He admits
that he has certain feelings -- and we believe him - but when he
says he wont act on them while acting on them would be illegal --
all of a suddent he guy is a liar.
Based on what exactly is his credibility a question?
Basically you and the other people who think it's ok to slap a
restraining order on this guy are advocating for prosecution of
thought crimes.
The guy has no record of doing anything sexual with children and
hasn't even been accused of ever harming any children. Yet because
he acknowledges that he has certain feelings he should have his
liberty infringed upon. Why exactly? Because his beliefs/feelings
evoke an emotional response that makes you feel icky.
robc|8.15.07 @ 3:34PM|#
First result (still searching to verify):
The laws regarding public photography have always been a gray area.
In the United States, photographs that are taken for editorial use
in a public place generally enjoy Constitutional protection under
the right of free speech. There are exceptions, however. Here are
just a few of the gray areas:
* While taking a picture in a public place is almost always legal,
any public place can become a secured emergency area in the event
of a police crime scene, disaster, fire or riot. In this case,
photography is not legal without permission.
* Even editorial photographs can come under scrutiny when a caption
is added. If the caption implies something false or slanderous
about the person in the photo, then it is no longer protected. And
the gray area becomes even grayer when you talk about photos as
fine art. That is especially true if the artist intends to sell the
photograph.
* Photographers cannot take pictures of a person in a public place
without permission if that photo is going to be used to promote any
goods or services.
robc|8.15.07 @ 3:38PM|#
result 2:
You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws
giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.
Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of
privacy. The right of privacy gives an individual a legal claim
against someone who intrudes on the individual's physical solitude
or seclusion, and against those who publicly disclose private
facts. Unless you have permission, avoid publishing or distributing
any photo of an individual that reveals private facts about the
individual (particularly if revealing those private facts might
embarrass the individual).
Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a
right of publicity. The right of publicity gives an individual a
legal claim against one who uses the individual's name, face,
image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining
permission. In case you are wondering how the news media handle
this, newspapers and news magazines have a "fair use" privilege to
publish names or images in connection with reporting a newsworthy
event.
Be particularly careful about celebrities. Using a photograph of a
celebrity for your own commercial gain - for example, posting a
photo you took of Clint Eastwood on your business's marketing
material or Web site - is asking for a lawsuit, even if you took
the photograph when you ran into Clint on a public street.
Commercial photographers avoid right of publicity/privacy lawsuits
by obtaining photographic releases from people shown in the their
shots. If you are considering selling your photos or using them on
your Web site, you may want to do the same. The Multimedia Law and
Business Handbook contains a sample release. Experienced performers
and models are accustomed to signing these releases.
robc|8.15.07 @ 3:42PM|#
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=619267
Above is a link to a 2005 story about MD banning upskirt
photography, because under then current state law, women had no
expectation of privacy when in public - thus an upskirt photo was
legal.
It mentions that a bunch of other states had recently passed
similar laws.
|8.15.07 @ 3:43PM|#
jh,
Your opponent probably knew as little about this law as you do -
which is not surprising, it's not something that is generally
applied to regular people. Nonetheless, if any of those children's
parents had objected, they could have forced you to stop
distributing your literature, and the courts would have enjoined
you from doing so if she petitioned them to.
ChicagoTom,
Please tell us what the rational defensible reason to restrict
this person's actions is? The likelihood that he will molest a
child.
Proclaiming his intentions is all well and good, but we're talking
about a person's sexuality here. Do you think you could go your
whole life without trying to get laid? My church has a group that
set out to do just that. It didn't turn out very well.
You can keep saying it's about my feelings, that won't make it
true. I don't hate Kodiak bears, either - nonetheless, it is a good
idea to take care around them. Bears eat stuff. Men try to have
sex.
robc|8.15.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Oh, and before someone slaps a restraining order on me, I dont know why I know creepy stuff like that.
|8.15.07 @ 3:44PM|#
Basically you and the other people who think it's ok to slap
a restraining order on this guy are advocating for prosecution of
thought crimes.
No. Absolutely wrong. He should only be prosecuted if he commits an
overt act, including the violation of his restrainin order.
|8.15.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Robc - I don't think you need to look much more. I see motion
pictures of children on the local news every night, broadcast
without parental permission.
I doubt even Mythbusters would waste an episode on trying to
dismiss the "can't show a picture of a child without parental
consent" myth.
CB
jimmydageek|8.15.07 @ 3:49PM|#
robc, thanks for the clarification. I was pretty certain that it
was basically what you stated, but was too lazy to do the
research.
joe, however, should do some research before he says "that is the
law...look it up yourself"...or something like that.
robc|8.15.07 @ 3:50PM|#
jimmy,
I just work under the assumption that joe is wrong. On occassion it
fails, but when lazy, its a good assumption.
jimmydageek|8.15.07 @ 3:51PM|#
joe | August 15, 2007, 3:44pm | #
Basically you and the other people who think it's ok to slap a restraining order on this guy are advocating for prosecution of thought crimes.
No. Absolutely wrong. He should only be prosecuted if he commits an overt act, including the violation of his restrainin order.
You're missing the point here. We're arguing the merits of the
restraining order. The fact that he violated it is secondary.
|8.15.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Jim,
Never said he did, and in fact this feels so much like a stunt that
it's unlikely he will.
But how is this different than if someone said to their therapist
that they were going to commit suicide? That person is duty bound
to try and prevent that patient from hurting themselves. Yet no one
is duty bound here to see to it that this guy doesn't hurt anyone.
(obviously the courts do by issuing the TRO - but I was referring
more to posters here)
My point is that no one wants to even think about it, wants to try
and figure out if there is something to do with this guy- other
than wait and say that the Free Speech trumps all.
I appreciate the debate Jim - really I do. :)
jimmydageek | August 15, 2007, 3:25pm | #
bromo,
Since turning 18, or whatever the age of consent in your state is,
have you ever found a 16 or 17 year old girl attractive? If so, did
you have sexual fantasies or thoughts about this person? If you
have, you should be arrested for what you might have
done.
OK - I'll bite.
I didn't see where the girls were identified as late-teenagers, I
saw "little girls" and "children", while acknowleging that yes, a
16 year old girl is by definition a child.
He has posted on a website about how he likes to watch little
girls, and posts where good places are to do this activity. If I
did in fact at some point do a double take at a 17 year old girl, I
certainly didn't post it publicly (umm...except for right now I
guess) nor did I give a location and encourage other adults to
congregate and do the same thing. Nor did I say what a tradgedy it
was that I was not allowed to come into physical contact with them,
or talk openly about it.
So yes, I do see a difference. A thought is just that. But this
guys' thoughts have also had associated actions - the websites, the
posting of photos, the visiting of a "child development building".
Cat's out of the bag. Someone should have the power to find out
whether this guy has the ability to harm children.
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Someone should have the power to find out
whether this guy has the ability to harm children.
It's statements like the above that make you, and people like you,
so very dangerous, bromo. You would blithely hand power to
"someone" to "protect the children".
Good move.
|8.15.07 @ 4:07PM|#
bromo,
Is it really that hard to understand that even if it is "for the
children" punishing someone for a crime that they haven't yet
committed is wrong. Of course you have to wait for a child to be
harmed before you can punish someone for doing it, to suggest
otherwise is insane. Should we also arrest a random sample of
drivers and gun owners since it can be proven that a certain
percentage of both will eventually harm a child. I don't even
understand your logic that somehow it is the duty of the state to
preemptively arrest and convict someone of a crime in order to
protect the children that they have not yet harmed.
Egon|8.15.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I had this same discussion with my wife. She took the same position as Bromo.
|8.15.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Do you think you could go your whole life without trying to
get laid? My church has a group that set out to do just that. It
didn't turn out very well.
So your position is that anyone that has fantasies of something
illegal will not be able to avoid acting on that fantasy? And those
people who should have their lives restricted because of what their
fantasies are?
Let's assume I have had fantasies or get turned on at the thought
of raping someone (in fact there are a few simulated rape porn
movies out there -- and there are people who are turned on by the
fantasy of raping someone). Would that justify me being restrained
from coming within 10 yards of women?
You can keep saying it's about my feelings, that won't make it
true. I don't hate Kodiak bears, either - nonetheless, it is a good
idea to take care around them. Bears eat stuff. Men try to have
sex.
You can keep denying that it's about your feelings all you want,
but in the end it boils down to you feel that men have an inability
to control themselves and thus you believe that people should be
punished for having thoughts you find icky.
No. Absolutely wrong. He should only be prosecuted if he
commits an overt act, including the violation of his restrainin
order.
joe stop being disingenuous, you know damn well that the
restraining order is the violation of his liberty. It all started
with that. You agree that the restraining order should not have
been issued, no? If so then the rest of your talk is
nonsense.
So again I ask you to tell me what he did that justifies the
restraining order.
|8.15.07 @ 4:20PM|#
I don't even understand your logic that somehow it is the
duty of the state to preemptively arrest and convict someone of a
crime in order to protect the children that they have not yet
harmed.
There are two primary examples to compare this to.
The first are Nanny laws such as DWI and Cell-phone bans, which are
justified solely on risk management. Those laws are all about
pre-emption. Of course, DWI and cell-phone bans have concretely
identifiable signs of risk adverse activity. Being a pedophile is
not as concretely identifiable (except in this particular
case).
The second is regulatory actions done in the name of safety, which
makes it a crime to disobey the regulatory action.
I disagree with both. But one can't say that preemptive laws are
not deeply rooted in our current society.
Take Iraq, for instance...
jimmydageek|8.15.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Nope. The law is very clear on that point. For a private person - and not a public figure - to go out in public is not the equivalent of granting his permission for his image to broadcast in the media.
joe | August 15, 2007, 4:17pm | #:
Um, nothing you posted contradicted me.
Really? Care to explain how it did not contradict you?
|8.15.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Last post for the day...
...your kid gets harmed by someone who has posted and described his
intentions to do so. People knew and no one did anything about it
because it was protected speech. Even when you have done all you
can to educate and protect your kids without smothering them, this
can happen, it does happen.
Would you have moved heaven and earth to prevent it from happening?
I would.
Cheers gang...it has been a very good debate to be a part of.
jimmydageek|8.15.07 @ 4:33PM|#
You seem to be conflating the issue at hand, bromo. This guy did not announce his intention to molest a child. He simply said that he would if it were not illegal. Big difference.
Episiarch|8.15.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Even when you have done all you can to educate and protect
your kids without smothering them, this can happen, it does happen.
Would you have moved heaven and earth to prevent it from happening?
I would.
So even when you have done all you can to educate and protect your
kids without smothering them, and one of them dies in a
car accident, do you now advocate banning all cars?
Your argument makes no sense. According to you, moving heaven and
earth includes violating the Constitutional rights of other people,
and you are just hunky dory with that.
You loving and caring about what happens to your children does not
give you license to arbitrarily decide when other people's lives
should be curtailed.
I feel like I am arguing with a wall, because evrything about your
demeanor says that you feel that worrying about your children is
some sort of bulletproof armor from responsibility to justice and
liberty. Jim Bob was only part right--Save The Children isn't
nuclear, it's depleted uranium.
|8.15.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Dammit...I just lost a really long post that addressed, like,
half the people on this thread here individually. I'm not sure I
have the strength in me to comb through all of the comments here
again and retype all of my thoughts. I'll do my best...
McClellan, then, has not done anything illegal; he has not even
advocated doing anything illegal
Yeah, but I bet he could be prosecuted in a civil court of law
concerning those photos on his website.
And his restraining order is equivalent to one where a Black
Panther who is known for writing hate literature is restrained from
being within 10 yards of a white person.
MP,
No, the Black Panther would have had to write a manual about where
to find all of the white people so that he could stalk them and
follow them around. It's clearly harassment. Someone can harass a
group of strangers.
John and Ken on KFI have been following this case for months,
and have interviewed him several times: they are beginning to
speculate that the guy is not actually a pedophile, but that he is
using his advocacy of pedophilia to get attention - that is it some
sort of stunt or performance.
crap-action-jackson,
I don't think it's a stunt. He is definitely a pedo. He is just
unusually honest, which is good for the community -- that way they
know who to avoid. Ostracism can be a beautiful thing
sometimes.
Having said that, this guy is fast becoming one of my personal
heroes.
ChicagoTom,
Why? Also: what's wrong with you?
I will say that I would not object to making it illegal to take
pictures of children without their parents' permission and then
post them on a web site that exploits them as sexual
objects.
Dan T.,
I agree with your sentiment. Many pedos like innocent -- or even
fully clothed -- photos of children. Presumably, the innocence is a
turn on for them. Consequently, that's what makes it all the more
difficult to make an easily enforceable rule against this sort of
thing.
I mean, as much as folks here mock the "for the children"
argument you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted to not think we have
some duty to keep young girls from being ranked on websites by
their sexual appeal.
Exactly. I find it hilarious that people throw out the old "for the
children" snarky retort when, well, it actually is about
the children this time.
he's basically begging someone to kill him.
dhex,
Exactly. I would wager that someone will sooner put him out of his
misery before he ever publishes his first anti-government
documentary. Good riddance.
If he is taking pictures of children without permission, isn't
that an invasion of privacy? Am I allowed to take pictures of my
hot blond neighbor jogging and post it on the internet along with
lewd comments?
Renegade,
It is arguably an invasion of privacy. There are lawsuits about
this kind of thing all the time.
I mean, honestly: could it be, despite our reservations, that
this guy simply wants to hang out and "get close" with kids and not
coerce them into doing anything they're uncomfortable
with?
You're a troll, right? Please tell me you're a troll. It's comments
like these that make the internet chillingly disturbing.
and says it's ok to come into contact with kids not your own in
a non-sexual way ("snuggling")
Er, "snuggling" can most certainly have sexual overtones (or
undertones, take your pick). In fact, "snuggling" is often a
prelude to foreplay.
I mean, this guy isn't half as creepy as NAMBLA.
Are you fucking kidding? This guy has creepy for breakfast, second
breakfast, brunch, lunch, dinner, and for midnight
snack.
The position, in fact, is that a person shouldn't be prosecuted
for what they might do, particularly when that person has never
voiced an intention of actually doing it.
MP,
You obviously did not click on all of the related links. He has
openly stated his intention to get sexual with children if it
were legal. He is just tacking on the "if it were legal" to
the end of the sentence to mess with people. He deserves to be
beaten within inches of his life.
Anyway, here's my take: this guy is guilty of harassment and
stalking on a massive scale. The restraining order could be
justified on those grounds.
And even if the restraining order was arguably inappropriate, here
is my proposed solution:
-Post his picture everywhere so that he is easily
recognizable.
- Give the guy a dose of his own medicine. People should just
follow him around en masse in public and stalk him the same way
that he is hunting children. He will go into permanent hiding or
else leave the area.
- Like I said, community members should just harass him (using his
own tactics) and see how he likes it. If he can harass children who
are gathered in large groups, maybe he can find out what it's like
to be harassed, in turn, by an equally large group.
I think returning harassment with harassment in kind is a suitable
non-governmental response.
|8.15.07 @ 4:56PM|#
He is just tacking on the "if it were legal" to the end of
the sentence to mess with people.
But of course. I mean, it's obvious that he intends on committing
said illegal action, isn't it?
I wish there was a mind-reading school near me.
Oh, and I also like the it's harassment even if you don't know
you're being harassed angle. If I call smacky names while standing
in a forest, does a tree fall?
(yeah yeah yeah...a forest isn't a website...still not buying that
line of reasoning though)
|8.15.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Ewww. Can I please have a different test case?
I'm gonna file this under, "That doesn't seem technically correct,
but that dude ain't right."
Reminds me of 2 Live Crew. Maybe they were "right" but they were
definitely douchebags.
|8.15.07 @ 5:12PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Why? Also: what's wrong with you?
Why? Because the pedophile in the story is making everyone else
look nuts by comparison.
Everyone is acting like this guy is a criminal and the worst person
in the world. Yet he hasn't actually done anything wrong ( ok he
violated a restraining order, that shouldn't have been issued to
begin with, in the process of giving an interview -- to me that's
just civil disobedience).
If this guy never said a word about what he was thinking, doing and
pictures he was taking, none of this would have happened. He would
still be out there hanging out at parks and looking at children at
play and having the same exact fantasies/beliefs, and no one would
be any the wiser. In fact he hasn't acted upon these feelings that
have existed long before he said anything publicly.
Yet everyone is acting like they know what this guy plans to do and
are ready to convict him for how people think he is gonna
act.
Really, the people advocating for an innocent man to be locked up
or monitored like a criminal because he comes off as creepy are the
creepiest and scariest people of all.
|8.15.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Reminds me of 2 Live Crew. Maybe they were "right" but they
were definitely douchebags.
And douchebags shouldn't have rights? Or maybe douchebags should
have a seperate system of justice?
|8.15.07 @ 5:19PM|#
bromo,
You are blithely ignoring everything that is being said to you and
repeating yourself. Episiarch made an excellent point to you;
namely, that you cannot simply entrust the government to protect
children by giving the government carte blanche. Liberty
is far too precious to begin curtailing it at the first sign of
deviance.
No one here is arguing that this man should be allowed to harm
children, okay? No one here has said that his behavior is
acceptable. But we can't start punishing people for what they say,
or for what they might do. I know that in your heart you mean well,
but the road to hell really is paved with good intentions. Try to
see all of the bad things that could happen if laws like what (I
think) you are advocating were put into effect. Do you want to make
it illegal for pictures of minors to be posted online? Do you want
to make it illegal for any pictures of minors to be taken, in any
context, without the consent of the minor's parents? Do you want
people to be prohibited by law from speaking of practices you (and
most others, myself included) find disagreeable?
Notice that smacky said non-governmental response, and I
think I can say she seems fairly incensed about this McClellan guy.
It's YOUR job to protect your kids, not the government's.
movie Larry Flynt|8.15.07 @ 5:23PM|#
If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it will protect all of you. Because I'm the worst.
|8.15.07 @ 5:41PM|#
It's YOUR job to protect your kids, not the
government's.
"Not the government's job" is what that means, of course.
|8.15.07 @ 6:08PM|#
I think he's pretty clearly advocating something illegal that is
"intended and likely to result in imminent lawless action" by
promoting (his word) "association, friendship and legal, consensual
cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls" when that "cuddling"
cannot, by any definition, be consensual. How does a three year old
consent to be cuddled by a 35 year old stranger?
When you seek these children out and post their location, you are
promoting a lawless action- at a minimum the physical assault of a
person.
|8.15.07 @ 6:35PM|#
joe -- in Hawaii. the legislature recently passed a law banning
upskirt photos without consent. In the testimony about this law,
law enforcement expressed frustration that they couldn't prosecute
people who took such photos, hence the requested law.
If it was recently legal to take photos in a public place of a
person's panties and/or genitals without their consent, how can you
conclude that it is very clear that you can't take pictures of
fully clothed people in public places without their consent?
And the googling by robc kept coming up with the phrase "gray
areas" over and over again. In your world does "gray areas" equal
"clear and unambiguous"?
And if you look through magazines such as Harper's, you'll see all
kinds of embarassing photos of non-public personalities that were
almost certainly taken without someone's consent, such as the
photos of grossly obese people taken for a recent article in
Harper's on the causes of obesity. I assume a national magazine
like that would vet everything they publish past a legal staff
prior to publication.
So, once again -- quote the law reference and show the legal
language to back up your assertion -- unless you're operating on
the assumption that whatever you say is by definition always
correct.
|8.15.07 @ 7:05PM|#
I'd solve this another way. Let the guy post and photograph as
he wants.
But I'd also turn a total blind eye to a parent who wants to go
after this guy with a baseball bat.
|8.15.07 @ 7:05PM|#
joe, googled "privacy rights photos public places" and got a
slew of references saying you have very little in the way of
privacy rights in public places. For example:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
said, "The general rule in the United States is that anyone may
take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public
place ... Members of the public have a very limited scope of
privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone
can be photographed without their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable
expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms ...
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
accidents and fire scenes, children ..."
Once again, joe -- cite the specific nationwide prohibition that
contradicts this article, or admit that for the very first time,
you ran off your mouth about something you don't really know much
about.
|8.15.07 @ 7:20PM|#
jh,
While true, your reference doesn't take into account the factor of
publication, which has its own can of worms.
Point of interest: Even given the whole publication factor, public
servants (congressmen, asshole presidents, etc.) have no such
protections. (Assuming bush hasn't yet declared an executive
decision regarding the the matter).
|8.15.07 @ 7:59PM|#
There's a huge bruhaha as to whether posting something on the
Web is equivalent to "publishing" it.
Personally, I'd like some legal protection against one's picture
getting snapped in public and then posted (without one's consent)
on some board where sickos make comments about how they'd like to
rape the person.
Oh well, bring on the burkas, I guess...
|8.15.07 @ 8:29PM|#
What Taktix said, except I lack his breadth of
knowledge.
You're lucky you got what you got, I usually charge for it...
|8.15.07 @ 8:31PM|#
If people could be arrested for having the urge to do something illegal/immoral, there would be no free people on the streets.
Robert|8.16.07 @ 12:44AM|#
"While taking a picture in a public place is almost always
legal, any public place can become a secured emergency area in the
event of a police crime scene, disaster, fire or riot. In this
case, photography is not legal without permission."
Not true. Otherwise on a TV show like
Cops they'd have to blur everyone, and they don't. You can
be sure the subjects of those programs find it embarrassing, and
would not sign releases if they were necessary. It's been explained
that permission is not required, and that even if
they follow the cops into non-public places, it's considered "news"
and they're allowed to show whatever and whomever they want. The
only thing that could stop them would be a gag order over a pending
court case.
Robert|8.16.07 @ 12:50AM|#
"How does a three year old consent to be cuddled by a 35 year
old stranger?"
By jumping into his lap, as I probably would've done frequently at
that age if my parents had let me; I was a very affectionate kid. I
think lots of other 3 YOs would too, although plenty would not.
Baldy|8.16.07 @ 6:53AM|#
I think the lawyers who argued for the injunction are "really sick" and have proven that they are unable to "control their impulses". Naturally, they should be forced into "treatment" until they are cured. (Unfortunately, though ignorance is treatable, stupid is for life.)
Egon|8.16.07 @ 11:07AM|#
jimmydageek | August 15, 2007, 4:18pm | #
Did you slap some sense into her, Egon?
Of course not; it's illegal. I do, however, have fantasies about
it.
Oh, and since no one has brought it up yet:
Oingo Boingo - Little Girls
I love little girls they make me feel so good
I love little girls they make me feel so bad
When they're around they make me feel
Like I'm the only guy in town
I love little girls they make me feel so good
They don't care if I'm a one way mirror
They're not frightened by my cold exterior
They don't ask me questions
They don't want to scold be
They don't look for answers
They just want to hold be
Isn't this fun
Isn't this what life's all about
Isn't this a dream come true
Isn't this a nightmare too
(Repeat first verse)
They don't care about my inclinations
They're not frightened by my revelations
Uh oh take a second take
Uh oh it's a mistake
Uh oh I'm in trouble
Uh oh the little girl was just too little
Too little, too little, too little
Isn't this what life's all about
Isn't this a dream come true
Isn't this a nightmare too . . .
And I don't care what people say
And I don't care what people think
And I don't care how we look walking down the street
(Repeat Chorus)
(Repeat first verse)
"Mr. Elfman, restraining order for one?"
|8.16.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Egon,
Danny Elfman is brilliant. That song did come to my mind,
actually...but it's too good for this thread. Although, eerily
appropriate.
Really, the people advocating for an innocent man to be locked
up or monitored like a criminal because he comes
off as creepy are the creepiest and scariest people of
all.
ChicagoTom,
"Monitored like a criminal"? Maybe do you mean, "Monitored in the
way that he is monitoring other people's children?". No, I don't
think that's creepy or scary...that is an eye for an eye.
If it's true that what he is doing isn't illegal, then
what's wrong with monitoring his face and his
location and his every movement, much in the same way that
he is doing to these innocent children? It's fair play. It's not
illegal for citizens to do the same thing to him that he is doing
to other people. But if you want to idolize him, go ahead...it just
makes you look like an ignorant creep.
Also, I gave it a lot of thought, and he most definitely
is threatening action -- it's a veiled threat. As an
analogy, suppose I said to one of you, "If you left town tomorrow,
I would stab your dog to death and I would kidnap
your wife and I would burn down your
house...buuuut that's illegal." Would you not
contact the police about what I've said to you? Would you not take
steps to protect your assets and your wife and your dog? Would you
not perceive everything I've said as a clear threat?
McClellan has most definitely threatened action. The fact that he
is using a "if it were legal" technicality doesn't make his
discussions any less clearly threatening to others.
jimmydageek|8.16.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Smacky,
I would smoke pot if it were legal. Since it isn't legal, I avoid
it due to possible repercussions. Same premise.
jimmydageek|8.16.07 @ 3:35PM|#
If it were perfectly legal, I'm sure many more people would kill others...if it were legal. What's wrong with that? Immoral...sure...but it would be legal...right??
|8.16.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Hello, someone just sent me a link to this discussion.
Interesting.
Photo usage laws vary state-by-state.
Upskirting is now illegal in several states, as is the selling of
photos taken up-skirts.
McClellan has advocated for pedophilia,
he does claim to have touched children "sexually in a latin
american country," and
his former website didn't just post pictures of girls, it also
provided information on the security at various events, as well as
specific advice on how to train children to welcome 'attention.'
That's called facilitation, and it's beyond reprehensible and well
into "how can we legislate againt that" territory.
the judge's ruling was excessive and his terminology was not
sufficient to rationalize his decision. the fact is, the ruling was
made because he was a self-confessed pedophile + a public nuisance,
NOT an immediate risk, although he does increase the vulnerability
of children who participate in such events, due to the general o/c
nature of many pedophiles.
|8.27.07 @ 9:19PM|#
The August 27th, 2007 New York Times has a headline, "Man Who
Put
Girls' Photos on Internet to Exit a State". While one such man
has
said he would leave the state, another man who directs
internet
users to seductive and erotic photos of young girls on the
internet
remains in Santa Clarita, California.
The following is a summary of published reports and existing
websites:
"Anthony D. Zinnanti, the attorney who orchestrated the effort
to
sanction Mr. Jack McClellan with a permanent restraining order
established his standing in the action by conscripting his 13 year
old daughter, Bianica Zinnanti, as the plaintiff in the petition to
the court. While Mr. Zinannti filed the petition on behalf of Jane
Doe and was not obligated to disclose the identity of Jane Doe, he
opted to declare during public meetings and during court proceeding
that Jane Doe was in fact his daughter.
However, while he was pleading to the court to restrain Mr.
McClellan from publishing photographs of Ms. Zinnanti, Mr.
Zinannti's own web sites directed visitors to clearly erotic
photographs of his own 13 year old daughter and other girls posing
to the camera with the clear intent to entice and arouse erotic
and/or sexual desires on the part of the viewer.
http://www.flickr.com/people/zinnanti/
Listed on one of his contacts on that page is
"brasilianbebe101"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brasilianbebe/
brasilianbebe101 is the account of Bianca Zinnanti, Mr.
Zinnanti's
13 year old daughter and the person Zinnanti publicly claims is
the
Jane Doe he represented in the petition for restraining
order.
Mr. Zinnanti is no stranger to sexualized teenagers. As
attorney,
his most notable case might be in November 2005 representing a
17
year old man who used his penis to slap the forehead of a
high
school freshman while two accomplices forcibly held the younger
boy
down on the floor. Mr. Zinnanti described the incident "more
in
terms of shenanigans".
Most ironic about these facts may be that for several months
of
2006, Mr. Zinnanti became obsessed with teenagers and pre-teens
chatting on the internet site he created called tweenland.com. In
fact, Mr.
Zinnanti abandoned his law practice favoring instead to
literally
monitor the private chats of 800 boys and girls he attracted
to
a site run from his home computer. ( Search in The Signal, or
inquire of me for full references)
He abandoned tweenland.com around February of 2007 parting with
bitter broadsides against the entire set of internet investment
companies. It appears that until the arrival of Mr. McClellan to
Santa Clarita, Mr. Zinnanti did not do much of anything. He
certainly failed to heed his own advice to children and parents.
The erotic photographs of Bianca
Zinnanti appear to have been posted during this period.
Finally, now searching for a new career after the failure of
tweenland.com, Mr. Zinnanti thinks he will start a career as a
journalist. (Stated recently in The Signal BBS pages.)"
|8.28.07 @ 2:13AM|#
I don't know the age this person likes "little girls" to be to
attract his interest, but if you have raised any, you'll vacate
your house before sleepovers and let "the mom" attend to the
youngsters. Their prattle is amazing and any adult male who
deliberately subjects himself to listening to it is unstable,
masochistic.
That said, I don't think that this man is a threat insofar as
"acting out" is concerned. Unless it can be established that he is,
or that he has indeed hovered over and frightened any individuals,
then this assertion of preemptive constriction of his movements,
seems untenable. What has he done to forfeit his liberty? Committed
a crime? No. Been committed to an institution as mentally ill
because he poses a danger to himself or the community? No. Without
such adjudication, what is the premise for the order?
I'm baffled regarding the law under which he stands restricted. And
the application of the standard imposed on him would require him to
retreat to a National Forest rather than permitting him to live in
an urban or suburban community. Is it unreasonable?
I wonder what motivated the persons who sought this court order. I
also would like to see a copy of the findings and the rationale for
imposing such severe restriction.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245