August 27, 2007
-
Pedophile
Jack McClellan is a self-described pedophile.
He says he has never molested a child. He has never been caught molesting a child. But he had a Web site where he posted photos of children and talked about how he liked to go to parks, libraries and fast-food restaurants where little girls would hang out.
Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig issued a injunction that prohibited McClellan from going within 30 feet of a school, playground or any place where children congregated.
McClellan has also been banned from “contacting, videotaping or photographing children.” Here is the link: Link
I am not sure that you can be a parent and not be angry at the thought of this guy. But others point out that he has never committed a crime until he violated an order by a judge to stay away from children. There are people in the media that literally defend his right to say whatever he wants.
Should a person have court action taken against him/her for expressing his/her thoughts?
Comments (109)
Usually I would say no, but this guy wants to have sex with children.
I vote we lop off his Johnson. Preemptive strike!
I can’t help but realize how chillingly Orwellian the injunction is. It seems rather unjust restricting a man’s liberty on mere thought-crime.
When it comes to kids, I’d rather be safe than sorry. What this guy needs is medical attention, not the courts to slap permanet file on him.
Tricky situation, though. Is a pedophile a mental disorder or a ‘natural’ thing they can’t help?
’nuff said…
Technically, no. If this is done, then it sets a precedent of anticipating crime (profiling) which opens a whole new can of worms.
That being said, I’d certainly not feel good knowing that he lived in the same area as my kids.
Well… That’s a tricky question, since he is being proven that he is a peodophile.. Stop a crime before it actually happen.. It’s basically you know he is one and you did nothing to stop it.. One of those days he just may cross the line.. How would you feel that on your concious mind??
yes.
I think it would be better to stop him before something happens. I mean, if someone was a self proclaimed Cleptomaniac, would you let them loose in a shopping mall just to wait and see if they’ll steal something? Thats dangerous.
What people need to get through there heads is that there is a big difference from a pedophile and a person who molests children. Break it down, unfortunately the news likes to focus on those who harm the kids. ‘Tis unfair for the members of Butterfly Kisses.
Innocent until proven guilty.
But this is why I believe in having guns.
Let’s note that sometimes expressing your thoughts is the same expressing your intent. And having the intent to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself. The fact that this guy clearly gets off on little children is reason enough to suspect that if he EVER took videos of children, he’d be using it as child porn.
-David
Well… I guess I’ll go the ACLU route on this one. As long as he’s not committing a crime, a judge should not be able to restrict his access to public areas or freedom of speech. It’s pretty sick, but well, so are a lot of things people say in America. They’re still allowed to sayit.
He shouldn’t be able to take videos though, but I think there’s a law against taking unconsented videos of people anyway.
Don Cauchi
When it comes to kids, I’d rather be safe than sorry. What this guy needs is medical attention, not the courts to slap permanet file on him.
Then we’re in agreement that the mere observation of children is legal. Not only that but that the mere fantasy or attraction to children isn’t illegal.
The only basis for the court injunction then, is based on a judgement of the possiblity of the man committing crimes against children. In absence of direct evidence of his intention and likely execution of molesting children, the court action must have been speculative. The stripping of liberties from an American citizen based on court guesses is stupid and horrendous. The court action is tatamount to taking the Bill of Rights and then grinding it to dust.
Tricky situation, though. Is a pedophile a mental disorder or a ‘natural’ thing they can’t help?
Who cares what a person thinks or feels. The beauty of America is allowing liberties within the confines of reasonable laws. This man has committed no crime and no one knows if it’s likely that he will commit one.
absolutely not.
Innocent until proven guilty is apparently something that doesn’t take place in America. The man didn’t do anything wrong other than express his beliefs.
annaknows
I think it would be better to stop him before something happens.
The burden of proof is on the courts to demonstrate that the man intends to act out his thoughts and imminently so. Would it be fair to restrict the man’s civil liberties on a 20% liklihood? 5%? 1%? He seems to have gone through his entire life without passing criminal lines.
It seems that no one knows how whether or how likely it is for the man to act out desires. If this is the case, then the courts have failed its burden of proof.
Absolutely- he is expressing interest in an illegal activity. If he describes himself as a pedophile, then he should be treated as such. I do not believe he deserves jail time, since he says he has never molested and has never been accused of it, but he should be kept away from children. jeez.
Dude.
Sometimes things are JUST WRONG- forget the courts, forget legistics and red tape – I wouldn’t want this guy looking at my little girl. Period. The judge was right to do that, it’s common sense that something would’ve eventually happened, and then people would’ve been outraged that he had made it public and no one had prevented everything. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too…
usually i’d say no, but in this case, i’d say yes. what he’s saying means that he could be a very real danger to children. precautions are necessary in this case.
The guys probably a mudslinger, he’s not really a pedophile, he’s revealing flaws of the system. Don’t hire him as a babysitter, and goddamnit keep an eye on your children; you’ll be fine.
After rethinking my initial gut reaction, I’m still confused on this issue. I’d have to look way into all the sex laws regarding it. But prosecuting thought crimes is a bad route to pursue, as Huginn mentioned. I think at least, they might want to watch this guy a little close. If someone was blogging about how they fantasized all day about blowing up a public building or killing someone, it’d make everyone nervous, but nothing could be legally done about it (except dispatching an FBI agent to monitor some of his activities).
-David
mmasquerade
usually i’d say no, but in this case, i’d say yes. what he’s saying means that he could be a very real danger to children. precautions are necessary in this case.
There is no brightline on the judgement of liklihood of the commiting of a crime. There is no objective means to determine just how likely the guy is to act on his desires. With that, this case would set a dangerous precedence: The restriction of civil liberties on mere thought-crime. Was this not the same sort of injustice that George Orwell warned us against?
No, it is disturbing that he thinks that way but last I checked the Bill of Rights protects our right to say what we want. In my book he deserves a lot of credit, most people would not admit to such a thing and also most people don’t have the willpower to keep from doing something that we really want to do.
That doesn’t mean that I would want him near any of my little cousins. But to be fair there are a lot of people I would rather they not be near including my aunt who is a politician and the mom of a couple of my cousins.
i agree with football_ninja44, usually i’m all for free speech, but this guys is just a disgusting perve…and the real question about this isn’t free speech, it’s whether or not we should let these sick people continue to have these thoughts about children, or get them help and take disciplinary action…to be honest any convicted sex offender should have a stamp or insignia on there forhead labeling them as a convicted sex offender…now i’m not saying the petty criminals, like the 16 year old kid who had sex with his girlfriend so they label him as a sex offender…but the ones who, like the man above, have shared thoughts and posted pictures of children or have molested children should have some sort of mark that they all share that let the people of the world know that they are sex offenders and therefore dangerous to all children…
no… I think maybe that voicing his thoughts he is preventing himself from taking action… maybe.
If a guy writes every week or so about how he hates his boss and wants to shoot him in the head, talks about killing his boss all the time, and is a self-described gun-toting murderer… Should we let him buy a gun?
This is an ethical dilemma… Because Americans have lost sense of right & wrong, chalking everything up as gray areas, stuff begins to slip by the bureaucratic red tape that we try to hold everything together with. Whomever acted out against this person did it in a completely legal fashion… no vigilante decisions, no overkill judgment calls. if you read the article, it says he was never CHARGED with molestation, which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Considering he broke the judges order by chilling near a child care center, that gives him a premise.
I’d hate to be the officer having to explain to parents why a self-described pedophile is living near their house, in close proximity to their little girls, and molested one of them. “Well, he said never did it before, so…” Yeah, that’ll go over well. Orwell would be ashamed.
“Should a person have court action taken against him/her for expressing his/her thoughts?”
The fact that you are oblivious to the point that you’re asking this question just goes to show how little you know about what really makes this country great.
Maybe you should move to a country with a thought controlling, fascist dictator — you seem to have an affinity for it. I don’t give a fuck what he did, I’ll stand by his right to say whatever he wishes, too.
Shit, at least he’s honest. If he hasn’t done any harm then there is nothing to convict him on. I think just keeping an eye on him is good enough.
My above comment said, I don’t mean to imply that his comments should not raise suspicion and that he shouldn’t be watched.
Pretty sad that a child has to be molested in order for person to be considered a threat to children. But still, he had committed no crime, so I don’t think the judge had any right restricting his freedom. This is just a hard situation, you don’t want to say “let the sicko check out the kids if he wants” but at the same time you can’t claim you know for sure that he will ever hurt anyone.
Aha! I’ve got it.
Everyone has a little criminal intent in their mind. It doesn’t matter who it is. Everyone has some danger in their minds, even if it’s just merely thinking, “Man, that guy deserves to die.” The one difference is, with this guy, is that he put this up on a website.
Does this make him more dangerous than other people who have these thoughts?
Of course not.
There are probably a lot more people out there with child fantasies than we know of, simply because it’s such a bad taboo.
Let’s think about this. Let’s say everyone’s mind is as easy to access as an opinionated blog is.
If every single person who ever had a thought about child molestation could be given this injuncture, would you support it?
Let’s go farther.
If every single person who ever had a thought of violence could be given mandatory anti-depressants, would you support it?
If every single person who ever had a thought about stealing money could be sent to mandatory counseling, would you support it?
Clearly, most would not. Everyone would be under some sort of punishment, at all times.
But now let’s look at this case as an isolated thing. Is this guy really dangerous?
Yeah, he has criminal interest. But the mere fact that he posts his thoughts online is a dead giveaway that this intent is no secret.
He’s being watched, and he knows it. Not just by FBI, but by parents all around him.
This guy is almost not a threat, I would say. If he even made a suspicious move, everyone would be after him.
The real threats are those who hang out at the parks, formulate their plans without blogging about it, and then lastly committing the crime.
This injuncture solves nothing.
-David
“I think maybe that voicing his thoughts he is preventing himself from taking action”
The dude’s a philanthropist if anything. Would you admit it if you were turned on by children?
As for the “forehead insignias” lets just remember that we all have dirty thoughts, and while I’d love to be able to read those of others typed across their faces, I would hate to have anyone reading mine. Especially a certain math teacher. Is there such a thing as reverse pedophilia?
He has a right to say what he thinks… we also have a right to protect what is ours.
A person who sells guns has a right not to sell it to a person whom they feel may intend to commit a crime with it. Just as a social worker has the right to deny adoption rights to a self proclaimed pedophile.
But this is not about giving him a kid. It’s about letting him wander around in public unchecked. I don’t think the above gun comparison was relevent to this situation.
Direshark
…The real threats are those who hang out at the parks, formulate their plans without blogging about it, and then lastly committing the crime…
Great point.
He should be arrested by the fashion police, that shirt is awful.
No, he needs a good attorney, this sentence is clearly over the top and unnecissary. Those who write “yes” are doing so with their emotions, not their logic.
Ephebophilia is not a crime.
Thought Police, anyone?
No…but he could possibly be a threat to children.
So what if they’re just thoughts, I’d stay hell away from him.
Hmmmmmmmm tough. I mean there are probably tons of pervs out there who don’t voice how they feel…… so I guess he has the freedom to think what he wants…… no matter how fucked up it is. Unless he ACTUALLYtouches a child, he’s just another sickass in the world.
No, how will you ever know when to draw the line?
“Pre-crime.” Ever seen Minority Report?
“Pre-crime.” Ever seen Minority Report?
“Thought-crime”: 1984
How utterly fucking orwellian. if anything, maybe we should be glad that he’s voicing, not doing. It’s a mental disorder, and the guy needs help.
and 30 feet from children in the state? that’s fucking house arrest…
If those thoughts are especially disturbing, then yes. He’s sick. I wouldn’t want this freak hanging around my children, that’s for sure.
He is wrong, and thats all to say, so yeah the Judge ruled correctly.
If it’s talking about urges to harm or exploit someone else, hell yes. Especially children. They can’t defend themselves and him talking so openly in such a way will in all likelihood eventually lead to him acting it out on someone. Use those glaring warning signs and stop it before it happens.
Innocent until proven guilty.
But this is why I believe in having guns.
8/27/2007 12:03 AM
weirdbean (message)
I’m sorry, what? You believe in children carrying guns? Hmm.
If the guy was talking about how he wanted to blow up an airplane, and how he liked to hang out in bomb stores and ride on airplanes, I’m pretty sure some kind of action would be taken to prevent him from fulfilling his desires. My initial reaction was that he shouldn’t have had the action taken against him since he hadn’t actually done anything, but as someone mentioned above we can never be too safe when it comes to our children.
He could voice his thoughts in a private manner. Instead he flaunts it for all to see. He is also posting photographs of minors without their parent’s permission. That in itself is against the law AFAIK.
I really want to say no. The government should not be privy to our private thoughts, and those thoughts (when expressed verbally, as here) should not be foundation enough for the government to act against us.
I don’t care about the @#$%#$ law in this case! His thoughts can be construed as threats which means he is a menace to society.
Clearly someone needs to make him wear a Poncho…
unless he says things like he wants to harm children then i dont think he did anything that is illegal. i mean he should not be allowed to post pictures of children unless it is part of photography art or something. there are people out there who study children and think they are interesting and that is all they are interested in. doesnt mean they all want to rape children.
The best defense is a good offense…
If we head down this path…then God help us. The man HAS NEVER COMMITTED A CRIME. He has never done anything with children, he has never posted child pornography (it is not illegal to take pictures of people in public) and for all we know, he has fufilled all his social obligations. The only thing is, he has admitted his desire, and with all due respect to Direshark…the two are not mutually inclusive. For example:
When I was in college I had no money. There were many times that I fantasized or planned out elaborate means of getting the money…most of the time it had something to do with stealing it. Now I have NEVER committed a crime, nor would I ‘seriously’ entertain the thought…but by this stupid emotional assessment I should be picked up for ‘thinking.’
How many people have thought about killing another person? would you prosecute them for murder? Haven’t you seen Minority Report?
We’d do the same thing if he threatened to kill the president.
If he hasn’t done anything wrong, then what’s the problem? People are allowed to think as they like.
It’s not like he acts on it…
When a person’s interests clearly show the intent to prey upon and harm another, then they definitely should be stopped before he acts. It seems obvious it is only a matter of time until he feels compelled to act upon his fantasy. Chilling!!!
yeah, his thoughts are evil – but who among us always has pure thoughts all the time. Ususally a crime must show some sort of action, the only action so far are these illegal websites, which should be some sort of crime I think. As a male, I have lustful – maybe some might say derogatory thoughts, toward women I see sometimes. I dont want to… and I dont share this with othrs cause they would call me a perv (even though most guys lust). I try to kep close to God and have a pure mind. If i were a parent I would not want my child around such people, yet I find it hard to hate this man, who actually hasnt even “done” anything yet. We are all capable of sin and must be careful. If we start being tried for having bad thoughts or temptations then there are going to be lots more peple in jail and/or going insane. but thats just my thoughts. I pray that these types of people, a sinner like anyone else, will seek God and seek to be pure-minded and not corrupted by this world and their own sin.
Daniel (doubledb)
No. I agree with huginn.
<33
I say yes. Do we (as a country) take action against someone who makes terroristic threats? They haven’t actually completed an action, only talked about it. Basically, it is stopping someone from doing something ILLEGAL that they have voiced their thoughts about. I can’t go around the streets threatening people with death and get away with it.
I don’t know.
It is wrong for him to post pictures of children without parental consent. That is against the law. And when he calls himself a pedophile, how exactly does he define it? Because if he is a pedophile in the sense that I think of a pedophile, it would be impossible for him to have pictures of children and not use them as porn. If that were the case, he’d be in trouble again.
We need to protect our children…but I don’t know what would be the best solution in this case.
While I think this man is sick and needs help…. there’s a part of me that thinks he has a sort of freedom if he hasn’t committed any crime.
And it’s quite possible that he might have enough control to NEVER hurt anyone.
Tough situation b/c I wouldn’t want a creepy guy like that near my kids. Ugh.
RYC:
What’s the definition of worshiping God?
It’s different for everybody…
I can worship being silent, just like somebody else can by dancing around…
He admits it himself that he likes kids in an unhealthy way. If I said to the police “I plan on murdering someone” they would do something about it. same thing here. you’re protecting the lives of innocent victims.
maybe instead of inforcing all of these limitations on this man we should be trying to get him help.
because he is clearly in need of it.
man, as sick as this guy is I still don’t know that I can condone punishing someone for a crime they didn’t commit. But then again we punish people for attempted murder. I suppose he really hasn’t attempted rape, but I dunno. I don’t want this guy around kids, but I also don’t want any snowballing of being punished for crimes that haven’t occured.
Can’t they stick him in counciling or something? Like, suicidal folks get stuck in counseling by the state because they are a danger to themselves or others. I dunno. Its messed up.
So he has a mental disorder. That’s not a crime. He’s willing to control it and not act on his drives. Then, to channel and express the emotion, he uses his website as a release. Would you rather him write about his urges or would you rather him act on them?
Perhaps he voiced this thoughts so someone would help him NOT commit a crime bigger than he already had.
I’m torn on this…….I really don’t know.
I think maybe this man should be getting some help. I like what ChristyattheLake said.
soooo, we should wait until he ACTUALLY ruins a little girl’s life by raping/ molesting her to do anything against him? what if this guy said he was an Islamic terrorist who intends to blow up Chicago or LA or some other big city? would we just sit around and say, hey, if he does it, THEN we’ll take action.. after it’s too late to save the lives of innocent citizens
in war, if we learn of the enemy’s intentions to make an attack on such and such a place, wouldn’t we move to block them? duh! it’s the same here, folks
sorry, the ACLU isn’t the best defender of justice- rather they get in the way more than they help
http://www.jackmcclellan.com/ That is the anti-jack mecclellan website. The guy who runs it Ron Tebo is a survivor of childhood sex abuse and is hell bent on educating the public on how to prevent such things. He even faced off on Fox News with jack mcclellan.
I don’t think so. It could have been a sick joke, or he could have been just getting his feelings out so he could be heard and prevent himself from exploding with bottled up feelings which might incline him to actually harm a child. Think of it this way….what if he’d just written it in his journal at home, or told a therapist about his feelings?
AND if thoughts can be construed as “threats” then I bet every poster here belongs in jail….how many have thought about robbing a bank, or punching a co-worker in the face? Even if it’s only for a fleeting moment.
Ewww Ewww Ewww….I would not want that guy hanging around playgrounds, schools, etc watching my 10 year old daughter.
Posting pictures and thoughts should be enough to clue people in – he is a danger to children.
Again, Change the crime but keep the details…
A person in NY blogs about blowing a public building, say a museum in NYC, to smithereens, has bomb-making materials in his house (which he also flaunts online). Somebody finds out and he is blacklisted and barred from that museum. A couple weeks later they find him climbing a tree to look into the museum’s windows, and doing things that look suspiciously like he’s finding the best place to How is that Orwellian? that’s a combination of common sense, logic, and crime prevention.
That’s right. If you read the article, the second to last paragraph says this:
“The judge’s ruling narrowed an injunction issued earlier in the month that barred McClellan from coming near anyone under age 18 anywhere in the state. McClellan spent 10 days in jail for violating that injunction when he was arrested earlier this month near a child care center at the University of California, Los Angeles.”
It doesn’t give any more details, but at this point it’s kinda implied. I doubt he accidentally was chilling by the childcare center…
no, why even have freedom of speech then? but this guys is pretty creepy.
leinad_gnoslegov makes some very good points!
He has the right to say whatever vile thing he wants, but when he violated the court order to stay away from children, he committed a crime. He opened the doors by publicly expressing his opinions. Now people will be watching him, waiting for him to slip up. I think he set himself up to be in this situation.
if you talk about murdering someone, do you get in trouble? if you talk about robbing a place do you get in trouble? if you talk about raping someone whether a child or otherwise do you get in trouble? The same applies here. but that’s SICK! he is seriously disturbed
I like seeing little girls too. They’re so cute. He should have added “I however will only pursue sexual relationships with those persons over the age of 18″.
According to other comments, we should also arrest every towel head because they MIGHT commit a terroristic act.
Leinad Gnoslegov
Again, Change the crime but keep the details…
A person in NY blogs about blowing a public building, say a museum in NYC, to smithereens, has bomb-making materials in his house (which he also flaunts online). Somebody finds out and he is blacklisted and barred from that museum…
The possession of bomb-making material demonstrates that the individual is an imminent threat. That the individual’s interest in museums is beyond the ordinary and that he has planned and intends to carry out acts of terrorism.
second to last paragraph says this:
“The judge’s ruling narrowed an injunction issued earlier in the month that barred McClellan from coming near anyone under age 18 anywhere in the state. McClellan spent 10 days in jail for violating that injunction when he was arrested earlier this month near a child care center at the University of California, Los Angeles.”
It doesn’t give any more details, but at this point it’s kinda implied. I doubt he accidentally was chilling by the childcare center…
Your observation here does not demonstrate criminal intent. An interest in viewing children is not itself illegal. His presence in at the child care center at UCLA demonstrates only that interest. In absence of an objective smoking gun, the best we can do is arbitrary speculation in what he may or may not be up to.
To you your earlier anology: No bomb making material has turned up. All he is doing is showing an unnatural interest in museums. This itself is not illegla. This itself does not demonstrate criminal intent.
The speech thing is a keg of dynamite waiting to be lit. How often do some of us get angry and spout off, “I could kill that so and so!” Do we mean it? NO! We are just angry and using phrases to show how angry we are. Does this guy intend to harm a child? I sincerely hope not. The only trouble I have with this, is that he is talking about something he knows will set people off. He knows it is wrong. He knows he is on the radar. I guess I don’t get the reason why? Is it to show other pedophiles how to go about it and the media is helping him to do this? So many things could be brought in: pre-meditation, stalking, lewd behavior, assault. If I had somebody in my district that was acting like this, I probably would pick him up for dropping gum on the sidewalk – because that could be considered enticing a child to run and pick up the gum! Swatting at a fly – obviously trying to wave a child over. I’m serious. Anything and he would be sitting in the back of a police cruiser.
it’s like Columbine…the kids mentioned that they wanted to kill but didn’t…
it would be better if there was some prevention
I agree with David. Just think they do the same thing with kids who make “hate/hit” lists in school right? They see that as a threat and they get punished. This guy obviously needs help, and keeping him away from kids is just the first step.
Slippery slope
You’re allowed to be a freak. However, if/when he does something illegal, bust him. It’s not the government’s job to level injunctions against innocent people. And legally, having dirty thoughts doesn’t make you accountable before the court.
No, actually.
* JimiRy
Ephebophilia is not a crime.
Thought Police, anyone?
o 8/27/2007 1:52 AM
Actually, I was initially thinking the same thing, JimiRy, but this might be closer to cases of people writing up hitlists online rather than Orwell’s Thoughtcrime.
Usually I would say no, but he’s obviously got bad intent. I don’t think it’s cool to have an old ugly guy thinking about kids like that, even if he hasn’t commited any crimes.
amysong makes a good point. If he actually had done something, and we found out that there was all the evidence pointing to the possibility of him doing something, people would be furious that nothing was done sooner to keep him off the streets and away from our kids.
Well… they can because Jack Asshole McClellan is putting children at risk of being raped and killed by other pedos including himself… Try to fuck a woman, JACK!!!
Great question. It does ring Orwellian n of Minority Report. And as in such, d probability is high. Dat he hasnt been caught doesnt mean he hasnt done it or tried. Rights go out d window when it comes to d rights of children. Now if wed just get em health insurance…
From thoughts come actions, do they not?
I sometimes feel like murdering people who cut me off in traffic, people who have eight or more kids, and anyone who thinks that Dane Cook is funny. Innocent until proven guilty, right?
“When a person’s interests clearly show the intent to prey upon and harm another, then they definitely should be stopped before he acts. It seems obvious it is only a matter of time until he feels compelled to act upon his fantasy. Chilling!!!”
He stated himself that he had no intention of doing anything illegal, so there goes the “intent” card. People are clearly jumping the gun here, and if you notice, the majority who are doing this are those with children. Some say “we can never go too far for the safety of our children”, my answer? Yes you can. You can go too far to the point where you restrict the rights of others due to fear and paranoia.
What’s “chilling” about this whole situation, is that this individual has not done anything illegal, save for dance on the thin ice of the the majoritys morals, but he has not broken a law. I think people need to take a look at the age of consent around the world, instead of living in a narrow bubble.
“Again, Change the crime but keep the details…
A person in NY blogs about blowing a public building, say a museum in NYC, to smithereens, has bomb-making materials in his house (which he also flaunts online). Somebody finds out and he is blacklisted and barred from that museum. A couple weeks later they find him climbing a tree to look into the museum’s windows, and doing things that look suspiciously like he’s finding the best place to How is that Orwellian? that’s a combination of common sense, logic, and crime prevention.”
You not only changed the crime, but the details as well. This individual has not threatened anyones life. You have successfully altered and skewed the atmosphere of this scenario by changing it to a life threatening bomb scare, which it clearly is not. It would be irrational to compare a man taking pics of children, to a man preping to commit a violent act that would take lives. You also have to realize that this individual was not preparing to commit a crime either, he stated that he had no intention of doing anything illegal.
I am going to assume here that you used the terms “common sense”, “logic”, and “crime prevention”, as scapegoat guises in lieu of your actual words “main stream morals”, “presumption”, and “paranoid judgement”.
he’s a sicko and I wouldn’t be suprised if someone shot him! At least everyone knows what this bastoid looks like unlike so many child molesters and phedophiles who live annonymously amongst us and our defenseless children.
ABSOLUTELY.
he is like domestic terrorist waiting to attack!
we suspend and expell kids for writing up lists and journals for talking harm to other fellow students, we put people in prison for writing out terror plans but we cant punish this idiot? ugh. so many things in this world that i just dont get.
You can’t undo someone’s sexuality. Sad truth. If that were the case, Ex-gay cults would actually work.
That being said, the man did post photographs of people to the general public he did not have the explicit permission of. If he had just kept them on his computer and didn’t send them out, he would have never been caught. And with such a hot headed topic, albeit with some justification behind that, he should certainly have not expected a fair result in trial.
So he had it coming.
I think if someone where going around screaming,”IVE A GUN! IVE A GUN!” we would react. “I WANT TO MOLEST A CHILD!” sounds even more alarming than a gun.
“Domestic terrorist waiting to attack”? More fear and paranoia…
And child molestation is not as bad as someone being killed…why can’t people understand this? He never said he wanted to molest anyone, he already said he had no intention of doing anything illegal.
Unfortunately the cost of freedom of expression is also allowing unpopular things to be expressed. It’s his right to do so and preventing it is violating his 1st Amendment Rights.
Rights are for everyone, not just for those who you agree with (and by the way, our own President needs to learn that.)
Gosh. The the man did not molest any children….. but then…….. if he touched one of my kids….. i would have to go to jail.
saw this guy on the mike and juliet show.
im going to side with the guy. he is in the public spotlight, has been for years, he would have been caught if he ever did anything.