ForumGarden

(Bolding is mine)

August 27, 2007

Man Who Put Girls’ Photos on Internet to Exit a State

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 26 (AP) — A self-described pedophile said he would leave California after a judge ordered him to stay away permanently from places where children gather, the man told a television station for a report that was broadcast Sunday.

“I have to leave the state, really, I can’t live here under this Orwellian protocol, the man, Jack McClellan, told the station, KABC. “It’s nightmarish.

Mr. McClellan did not say where he planned to go. He did not immediately return a message left on his cellphone by The Associated Press. He has been unemployed and living in his car since arriving in Southern California this summer from Washington State.

Mr. McClellan, 45, came to the attention of the authorities because of a Web site where he posted photographs of children in public places and discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls congregated. His Internet service provider took down his Web site more than a month ago.

Mr. McClellan maintained he started the site as a form of therapy and would not do anything illegal. He has never been charged with molesting.

But on Friday, the judge, Melvin Sandvig of Los Angeles County Superior Court, issued a permanent injunction and a three-year restraining order that prohibit Mr. McClellan from coming within 30 feet of schools, playgrounds and other places where children congregate.

The ruling narrowed an injunction issued earlier in the month that barred Mr. McClellan from coming near anyone younger than 18 anywhere in the state. Mr. McClellan spent 10 days in jail for violating that injunction when he was arrested this month near a child care center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The new ruling also bars Mr. McClellan from contacting, videotaping or photographing children or publishing their photographs without written consent from a guardian or parent. Mr. McClellan could be arrested if he violates that prohibition.

Let me try to unravel this.

Assume I have a website. It might be a blog, for example.

Have we reached a point where, if my hobby is taking photos of children - generically, not as named or known individuals - at play, I may no longer post those photos on my webspace?

I'd point out, while we consider that question, that many world-famous photographers have published coffee-table-books of such photos from their portfolios.

I think it's this part that did it:



Mr. McClellan, 45, came to the attention of the authorities because of a Web site where he posted photographs of children in public places and discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls congregated. His Internet service provider took down his Web site more than a month ago.

Mr. McClellan maintained he started the site as a form of therapy and would not do anything illegal. He has never been charged with molesting.

So he hasn't done anything yet but feels he needs therapy...doesn't that sound like a budding problem? Would it not be smart to nip this in the bud rather than wait for him to act?

I was unaware that legislation existed which proactively prevented crime before any criminal act had been performed, by criminalizing the not-yet-guilty; saving, of course, the shining new PATRIOT provisions. If you're telling me that courts can order people's restraint without any crime having been committed and without any doctor's certification of insanity, and that you're pleased courts now have such power, then that's an end of the question. I'd want to leave such a state myself, I'd not be able to live there under such an Orwellian protocol.

Being very familiar with this Scum bag I for one am very happy to hear he is leaving the State of California. He is a very scary individual who flaunts his "Pedophila" and clearly and loudly states he is one.

He wanted attention he got it from every mother in the State. Yes he has danced on the line more than once and recently got caught outside a daycare center at University of California. Yes his site was taken down if for nothing else because the host took it down for several reasons.

I'm sorry Spot but a man like this needs to be watched closely. Yes we are assuming that he will commit a violent act aganist a child (I for one believe it will happen if he isn't locked up). Has his rights been violeted I don't think so. He went to far by flaunting his pedophile likes for young girls on the Internet and gee guess what it's not acceptable here in the State of California.

I don't know about any of you but as a Mother, Sister, Aunt, Grand Mother I would if necessary break the law to make sure a dirt bags like this guy doesn't get a chance at killing a child. :-5

I'm sure where ever he goes the reaction will be the same, even if he crosses the border into Mexico.

You don't start a website such as his was as a form of "Therapy" you actually go and get the therapy which he had no intentions of doing. Like I said he wanted attention he got it.

Of course these are my opionions and mine alone.

But there are very few people alive who don't have at least as much "chance at killing a child", Carla.

Perhaps we're using the word "pedophile" to mean different things here? When homosexuality was illegal in England - I say nothing of the rest of the world, I speak only of what I remember locally - the illegality was against specified acts, not against a mindset. A more camp collection of woofters would have been hard to bring together under one roof than those who performed for the BBC's Home Service, but the only ones among them to be arrested were those who enticed strangers to explore their virility in assorted conveniences around the heart of London. Pedophilia is as equally illegal an act (to the extent that it encompasses actions declared to be illegal in various statutes) as homosexuality was at that time. Your Jack McClellan seems to have been pointing all this out in fairly dramatic fashion recently.

I wonder whether you're chasing down the wrong people?

Spot your correct in your assesment of Mr. McClellan has only committed minor crimes to date. He was asked to stay 100 yards aways from children he didn't. Pedophilia is illegal do we have to wait for him to molest, rape, or kill a child?? then say I told you so. His site was a guide to Pedophilia in the State of California it was not a form of "Therapy."

He wants help I say give it to him LOCK HIM UP NOW..we will all rest easier.



[QUOTE]But there are very few people alive who don't have at least as much "chance at killing a child", Carla. Perhaps we're using the word "pedophile" to mean different things here? When homosexuality was illegal in England - I say nothing of the rest of the world, I speak only of what I remember locally - the illegality was against specified acts, not against the mindset. A more camp collection of woofters would have been hard to bring together under one roof than those who performed for the BBC's Home Service, but the only ones among them to be arrested were those who enticed strangers to explore their virility in assorted conveniences around the heart of London. Pedophilia is equally illegal as an act (to the extent that it encompasses actions declared to be illegal in various statutes). Your Jack McClellan seems to have been pointing all this out in fairly dramatic fashion recently.

I wonder whether you're chasing down the wrong people?[/QUOTE]

I'd have thought it was impossible to be inside any city limits anywhere in California and not be within 100 yards of someone under 18. I may be wrong. Thank you for the discussion. I don't expect either of us is likely to involve the other in much understanding of what's being said by each of us. I'm not sure either of us has yet contradicted the other, it's as though what we say spirals about the other's observations but leaves them unexplored.

If "his site was a guide to Pedophilia" there are perfectly valid laws to convict him of incitement to commit an offense.

The twin concepts of law and order were far more widely understood and supported by the general population in earlier days.

Spot you correct in the 100 yard aspect lots of young people here for sure. ;)Actually he was ordered was as follows: [QUOTE]Friday, the judge, Melvin Sandvig of Los Angeles County Superior Court, issued a permanent injunction and a three-year restraining order that prohibit Mr. McClellan from coming within 30 feet of schools, playgrounds and other places where children congregate.


So he has very litte room in California to move and hopefully will move on. Of course any other state will have to deal with him as they see fit. If nothing else it will hopefully tighten up the laws that protect our Children, and maybe legislate for newer tougher ones. Believe me I understand what your saying.



[QUOTE]I'd have thought it was impossible to be inside any city limits anywhere in California and not be within 100 yards of someone under 18. I may be wrong. Thank you for the discussion. I don't expect either of us is likely to involve the other in much understanding of what's being said by each of us. I'm not sure either of us has yet contradicted the other, it's as though what we say spirals about the other's observations but leaves them unexplored.

If "his site was a guide to Pedophilia" there are perfectly valid laws to convict him of incitement to commit an offense.

The twin concepts of law and order were far more widely understood and supported by the general population in earlier days.[/QUOTE]

Why bother to toughen up any laws? Why bother to have any laws at all? You don't need laws if your courts simply impose the will of the majority on the minority - or the governors on the governed, come to that. Legislating for newer tougher ones is a redundancy if there's no defense available against the public hue and cry or a media rape.

Either he committed a crime or he didn't.

The reference to "Orwellian" is Orwell's discussion of thought crime in "1984".

Obviously if a law has been broken by Jack McClellan then the court is quite sensible in imposing a penalty in the form of a restraining order, even one which seems impossible not to break in the course of normal existence. I haven't seen in the news report any indication of an act which the court found to be unlawful before making the restraining order, that's all. I'm sure it's entirely the lax writing of the news reporter.