Heart-ache: California crushes pedophile stalkerazzi’s dissent
posted at 12:54 pm on August 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
His name’s Jack McClellan and by his own admission he’s a pedophile — with a twist. He doesn’t actually touch kids, he simply hangs around places where they’re known to congregate and posts the addresses and photos he’s taken there on his website. (Or at least he did; as far as I know, the site’s down now.) Creeped out beyond belief, a bunch of parents in California applied to a local court for a TRO against him and got one. But with a twist there, too — the TRO covers the entire state, not just the local area, and prohibits McClellan from “following, stalking, hitting or loitering” within 10 yards of a minor. The cops arrested him for his first violation yesterday afternoon after he was caught hanging out outside UCLA’s Infant Development Program. Patterico sides with Eugene Volokh, who says it’s a bridge too far:
[T]he breadth of the order raised some questions for 1st Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, who called it “more or less house arrest.” Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said that restricting McClellan to 10 yards away from any child in California means “you can’t go to the store, you can’t walk down the street …. He can’t go to court to challenge this. How can you be sure you can stay away from anyone 17 and younger?”…
“They have an understandable worry this guy is going to do something bad,” said Volokh. “But that’s not enough. You need at least probable cause to believe some crime has been committed.”
I must be misunderstanding what the word “loitering” means because Volokh seems to think that McClellan’s at risk of arrest if he so much as passes a kid in the street. As I read it, it means he can’t linger near them. Which, admittedly, doesn’t quite solve the conundrum — e.g., can he buy coffee at the local Starbucks if the baristas are under 18? — but it ain’t exactly house arrest either. As for the point about probable cause, any lawyers want to help answer that one? It should be noted that the TRO here was a civil harassment order, which, according to California’s court page, is available against anyone who’s “stalked, harassed, sexually assaulted, or threatened”. Arguably McClellan’s website provides proof of stalking, but only against the children of whom he’s taken photos, not every child in the state.
The most workable solution would probably be to revise the order by limiting it to places children congregate: schools, playgrounds, any site where one should reasonably expect to find two or more children. Doesn’t solve the probable cause problem but it does at least give him a little breathing room in transit. See this comment at Patterico’s site, though, arguing that maybe there is probable cause after all.
Here’s the man himself two weeks ago on Fox enjoying and yet not enjoying the attention he’s getting. If he didn’t have such a long history of following kids around I’d suspect this whole thing was a stunt to get in the papers.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The ACLU will come to his defense.
All he has to do is claim to be a muslim and say that his religeon allows him to be with a six year old girl as long as he waits until she’s nine before having sex with her. CAIR will come to his rescue.
Tony737 on August 14, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Screw him. He’s an admitted pedophile- he’s not taking pictures for artistic purposes. If he’s stalking kids, it’s only a matter of time before he nabs one- if he hasn’t already.
Even after the TRO he’s still “hanging around” places kids congregate; it would be different if he were just walking down the street minding his own business.
Hollowpoint on August 14, 2007 at 1:00 PM
“He doesn’t actually touch kids.”
Yeah, not yet. Give him some time and his obsession will escalate. Besides that, he provides kiddie pix to OTHER pedophiles who DO actually touch kids and that encourages them.
Tony737 on August 14, 2007 at 1:02 PM
So we have an open pedophile waving a red flag around and we are supposed to be the slightest bit concerned with the legalese of the TRO? I don’t think so.
America is mad. It’s more concerned with process than justice.
TheBigOldDog on August 14, 2007 at 1:06 PM
AP, I thought you had a law background. can’t you answer this? He claims that he only watches kids. I agree with Hollowpoint – it’s just a matter of time before he takes the next step, so to speak.
I don’t think the TRO goes too far – it is intended to protect children from him – an admitted pedophile.
pullingmyhairout on August 14, 2007 at 1:09 PM
“House arrest”??? What kind of stupid laywer-speak is this? The guy was picked up OUTSIDE OF HIS HOME! He was TAKING PICTURES OF CHILDREN! And not just toddlers, but INFANTS! Are we as a society suppossed to wait until AFTER he rapes a baby to death before we do something about him? Just like with terrorism, the crime is too heinous to wait for it to happen. We MUST prevent it from happening in the first place.
Tony737 on August 14, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I didn’t start the fire…I just lit the match and pour gasoline all around.
If it’s not illegal, it’s pretty damn close to the line, probably as close to the line as you could get!!
HarryStar on August 14, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I agree with Hollowpoint. Screw him.
I fully advocate the death penalty for proven pedophiles, so I have no sympathy for this human detritus.
Redhead Infidel on August 14, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I heard on the radio that he had been arrested sitting on a bench outside the child center with his camera in hand. However, I have not been able to verify it.
Though it’s been some years, I have spent a lot of time on the UCLA campus but couldn’t tell you where the child center is without getting a map and looking it up. IOW, it’s not in the main campus area. I don’t think anyone would believe that he just wandered across it, sat down (contrary to the TRO), and just happened to have his camera.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Believe it or not, I’m actually not concerned about if he’s comfortable. First Amendment? He’s stalking minors and admits he’s a pedophile.
No Sympathy.
amerpundit on August 14, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I do not believe in the death penalty for pedophile scumbuckets like this certified creep. I do however believe in sending him to prison, and place him right smack dab in the middle of general population, and make sure they all get the word well in advance that he is coming to be among them, so that they can all give him the warm welcome he so richly deserves. Because even among the most vile of criminals, they still view guys like this at being beneath the bottom of the food chain. He’ll be lucky if he lasts 30 minutes following general processing.
pilamaye on August 14, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Best solution; Neutralization.
Viper1 on August 14, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Isn’t there a law against taking photographs of children and uploading them online without a parents permission?
And if not, how can parents keep this creep from taking any photo’s of their kids?
PS
Congrats Jack! I never thought I’d find someone I’d despise more than Osama bin laden.
But then again, I’ve never been a fan of child predators (including “wannabes”), as I feel they are the lowest lifeforms on our planet.
Darnell Clayton on August 14, 2007 at 1:32 PM
This is the kind of case where the wackiest of Libertarians give themselves a bad name.
Clark1 on August 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Just like Muhammed.
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Isn’t there a law against taking photographs of children and uploading them online without a parents permission?
I think under this Kongs case it is against the law since it is done with an “abnormal sexual motivation.” If you read the case (try findlaw) there are a number of examples of behavior given that were sufficient to convict.
People v. Kongs (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1741.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM
I don’t know if there is a law. From what I understand, people can be photographed without their permission while out in public, but seeing as schools are public property, and children are required to attend, I wonder if there’s some exception there.
I’m not concerned about his comfortability either, but I am a little worried about any encroachment on the First Amendment. I want this guy watched at the very least, but I sincerely hope they tread lightly here so as not to make things worse for the rest of us.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 1:43 PM
He was run out of WA. state, than slimed his way to CA. If he is homeless where is he getting money from for him to travel around and even go to stores? One day he will wander into the wrong neighborhood and parents will defend their own. He may not be hurting children but what about all the pervs he is giving advice? Really have no concern about his rights, my granddaughters rights come first.
calgrammy on August 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Piles of dog squeeze, like this freakazoid McClellan, almost put me in favor of the death penalty.
’nuff said.
locomotivebreath1901 on August 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM
If I follow little girls around hoping I can get a glimpse of their panties and take a photo I am guilty of child annoying since it is done with an abnormal sexual motivation. Similarly, if I lie in wait or follow little girls around to take their photos to put on a pedo website, I can’t see how that wouldn’t be child annoying, too.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Saw this creep on
PravdaCNN yesterday. He lives out of his car, and yet he has a blog again. Wonder where he’s getting the internet access? If it’s alibrary, all the workers there ought to shut down the computers as soon as he steps foot inside. Expect to hear the bootsteps of the ACLU stormtroopers anytime soon.BTW, think it’s a coincidence that he’s from Seattle?
BigOrangeAxe on August 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Does it even do that? It proves he’s a creepy scumbag, but stalking is a very specific thing, and I don’t think taking pictures of random kids qualifies. If he were following one around and repeatedly photographing them, yes. But that doesn’t seem to be what he’s doing.
I like all grown up girls. If I like to go downtown or to the beach or other places where they congregate and take pictures of adult women, am I stalking them? No.
There’s going to be a lot of legal wrangling over this one, which unfortunately is just what this dirtbag wants. It would be nice if he could just fall down 15 or 20 flights of stairs.
Pablo on August 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Oh, jeesh! I was living in SF when it was revealed that a branch library was allowing NAMBLA to use one of their rooms for meetings at 3:30 p.m. during the week. The librarians defended it on first amendment grounds. What a bunch of crap!
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 1:56 PM
If this guy is posting pictures of children without the written consent of their parents or guardians he can be sued.
Who would want a picture of their son or daughter uploaded as whacking material for a bunch of perverts?
Mike Honcho on August 14, 2007 at 1:58 PM
P.C. section 647.6a)prohibits child annoying which is defined differently than stalking. For one, it doesn’t require the offensive behavior be repetitive.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Except in the first example, you’re hoping to see more than just the girls as they walk around, and you’re likely to point your camera in a specific direction.
If he’s just taking pictures of kids without taking sexual pictures, I don’t see how it’s legally the same.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 2:01 PM
You aren’t loitering at Starbucks if you are in Starbucks buying coffee, or hanging out in “good faith” to finish your coffee after the purchase.
Isn’t that common sense? Why must we define everything so strictly?
DaveS on August 14, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Not according to the statute and the case law. It’s any type of behavior that is the result of abnormal sexual motivation of a minor. If he is using the photos to post to his website or email to other pedos or because he finds them sexually stimulating, he is in violation of the law.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I meant any type of behavior directed at a minor which is the result of an abnormal sexual motivation. You have to be registered with Findlaw, but this case is good law and cited all the time: Link
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 2:08 PM
I’m not registered there. Though I did read a little on the Kongs case. With that one, it sounds as though he basically had kiddie porn except that the girl was clothed. She was basically displaying herself sexually.
The kids here aren’t, so I would think this would be a little different.
Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Ok, so he’s not committed any criminal activity (or misdemeanor at best), but he’s admitted to thinking about it. And what do we propose for his inappropriate thoughts?
WOW. that’s a lot of punishment for a thoughtcrime with no proof of illegal activity. Amazing that it’s no longer required to actually do anything to get a death sentence, prison, etc. if many of you have your way; you just have to think wrong.
Thank goodness none of you were founding fathers for our country. We’d be perfectly safe as long as we never had a non-approved thought though, right?
So, what other thoughts should be grounds for immediate incarceration or execution? Exactly which thoughts are so horrific for me to think that I ought to be killed by society for simply having them in my head?
I’ve got the best hope ever though. If only police had a way to read minds so we could kill anyone who had inappropriate thoughts so we didn’t have to wait until they admitted their thoughts and gave us this warning.
Then we could kill everyone with inappropriate thoughts.
That would be super… if only it were 1984 again.
gekkobear on August 14, 2007 at 2:25 PM
If you haven’t read the case and other cases like it, don’t tell me what behaviors it does or does not prohibit. I’m not going to waste my time paraphrasing all of it for you.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Hmph. Law this and law that. Lawyers (and those whom think lawyers are experts of any kind) are notoriously one-dimensional thinkers.
This guy’s perversity doesn’t call for restraining orders or new laws or any of that.
What it calls for is a few fathers who have as much respect for sickos as the sicko has for common decency. I’m sure they would be more merciful than general population inmates.
angryoldfatman on August 14, 2007 at 2:27 PM
gekkobear: He’s taking photos of little girls, posting them on a pedo website, and telling the pedos who read it where to find these little girls. That goes way beyond “thoughts.”
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Spoilers!
People win, Kong falls off a big building.
Dash on August 14, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Kong was a pervert, too. Remember how he pulled off the clothes of the lovely Fay Wray and diddled her with his big fat ape finger?
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Dude, that went a bit too far. PG-13 board.
MadisonConservative on August 14, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Dear Allah,
Why keep posting all these articles about potential Dem V-P candidates?
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 14, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Well, I advocate the death penalty for proven pedophiles. Though in their case its not a penalty, more like a necessaty.
In this perverts case, sicne he has not touched or molested any child then he is not guilty of pedophiliasm. however, if any child who he has photographed and passed around the information is ever kidnapped, rapped, murdered, or just scared by “chester the molester” this prick should be charged with child endagerment, conspiracy to harm a child, etc. Hell, some of those charges may be valid now, since he is giving the information to people who WILL act upon it.
Wyrd on August 14, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Pretty creepy guy. But I think people are overreacting a bit here.
The prime argument seems to be that this guy should be locked up because he endangers the children he photographs.
Let’s say some violent pedo sees a pic of a girl he likes on this guy’s site. Is this pedo really going to travel to whereever the girl’s picture was taken to kidnap her? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to when said violent pedo probably spends most of his spare time hanging out at local kiddie haunts and also sees kids he ‘likes’ there.
That’s assuming that any info about where the pics were actually taken is posted on the site. I believe it is not as his argument to the legality of the pic-postings is based precisely on the anonymous nature of the photographs. As soon as he gives any info making the pics non-anonymous, that defence no longer holds. So I say he doesn’t give location information.
Aylios on August 14, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Actually, I think he is or was just giving out information about events and/or places where kids might be.
Also, from the Kong case:
tine on August 14, 2007 at 3:48 PM
He has another site again? Last I heard he had two sites shut down already.
Whoever decides to host this creep (whether foreign or domestic) may hear some “unkind words” in the near future.
Darnell Clayton on August 14, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Correction – he hasn’t actually been caught touching kids.
I can believe that a pedo would travel out of his neighborhood -even out of state- to make that big ‘score’ if he thinks he can get away with it. Don’t those internet cop stings often snare out-of-staters who travel with the hope of the big score with their underage ‘friend’? Don’t some pedos actually travel overseas (to, for example, Thailand or Cambodia) for ‘vacations’?
If nothing else this guy is an accessory.
CrazyFool on August 14, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Star Chamber.
SilverStar830 on August 14, 2007 at 4:16 PM
My argument is that I think he should be locked up because he has violated Penal Code section 646.6. My gut feeling is that law enforcement is currently building a case against him. Frankly, with his notoriety, and with the number of gangs in LA, he is risking his life the longer he goes unarrested.
I haven’t been following this too closely, but I remember hearing it reported that he was going to fairs and special events and posting pictures he took of girls and rating the event as to – I don’t know what to call it other than pedo appeal. I think he had a rating system, i.e., Jack gives it 4 LGs (out of 5)!
I suspect a pedo would travel to a nonlocal event because, he probably has trolled all the local ones and people are starting to get wise and he is less likely to be recognized out of his neighborhood.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Not based on Kongs. From the case:
This scumball doesn’t appear to have any actual contact with any of the children, so the precedent set here wouldn’t apply.
Pablo on August 14, 2007 at 4:55 PM
They didn’t go far enough.
And admitted pedophile like this, requiring parents to get a TRO… probably requires hospitalization someplace where they lock the doors to keep the patients from excaping.
Lawrence on August 14, 2007 at 5:25 PM
The contact is the act of taking their photo. McClellan’s behavior also goes beyond a neutral viewing in that he is/was uploading them to his pedo website.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Oh, Lord! Now they are reporting that he was sitting inside the lobby of this child development center with his camera out.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 7:31 PM
He can’t hide his creepy sickness behind sunglasses. He’s a creep. He fails at adult relationships so he preys on the defenseless.
Well, not defenseless if I happen to be standing next to them when he is around.
Montana on August 14, 2007 at 7:33 PM
From a constitutional perspective, this whole thread is a little troubling. Not that I don’t understand the emotion, of course; if this guy trips under a bus tomorrow, I probably won’t go into mourning.
But its hard not to notice that some of the very same people who (rightly) argue that “hate crimes” should be dismantled because they amount to criminalizing “thought” are, in this case, taking exactly the opposite stand.
It’s an interesting legal question – although the answer is clear cut. It’s hard to get much more unconstitutional. Which I realize will be an unpopular opinion … but your private fantasies aren’t the government’s concern – no matter how twisted. And I know some of you freaks have some twisted thoughts.
Interestingly, he’s not even being punished for his thoughts – but for voicing his thoughts. The precedent it would set is almost funny – a “dont’ ask, don’t tell” approach to pedophilia. If you want to hang out at the playground all day, we won’t touch you … unless you volunteer that you like Nabokov just a little too much.
Wonder what would happen if tomorrow he said: “Just kidding. I’m not a pedophile.” After all – the only evidence is his own claim.
This entire thing reminds of border enforcement. All this publicity given to this case … while meanwhile, actual victimizers are getting quiet slaps on the wrist. How about we forget about this chump – and work on instituting the death penalty for first offense child rapists?
That would be a little more useful methinks.
Speaking of border enforcement … if this kiddie-obsessed kreepazoid had a brain, he’d become a Mexican citizen then sneak back in the U.S. illegally before committing his crimes or running his kreepy kooky website.
Then nobody would care, I guess. And the ACLU and Sean Penn would pay his legal bills.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Out of curiosity, why not? I mean, for those who’ve actually committed the crimes.
I’m not a fan of the death penalty generally – I think trusting the government with that power is actually a non-conservative position – but I think that if we’re going to have it, it ought to be used for a lot of crimes, including violent rape and child molestation, and similar crimes.
The death penalty would actually be useful if it really eliminated some of the worst people from society. I always thought it was stupid that we execute some idiot who was fleeing from a crime and got lucky with a shot that killed a cop … but brutal rapists just get a couple decades in prison.
Professor Blather on August 14, 2007 at 7:55 PM
That’s not contact. He’s had no interaction with them whatsoever, he’s merely taken photos from afar. And his “pedo website” isn’t illegal unless there’s sexually explicit photos.
At this point, I’m not even sure this guy is a pedo. He’s clearly trying to game the system and explore the edges of the envelope.
Trying to find a legal solution here is extremely vexing. But if he put up pictures of my daughter, the solution would be crystal clear, it wouldn’t involve the courts and he’d never do it again.
Perhaps this is an object lesson in looking to government as the solution for all problems.
Pablo on August 14, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Only a dangerously mentally-disturbed loon would broadcast his illegal and diseased intentions this way.
Time to commmit him for his own safety, and our own.
For about 60-90 years, or until it falls off.
profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Physical contact is not required. Nor does the victim have to be offended. And the pedo website is evidence that he had abnormal sexual motivation (which is required) in taking the pictures. Sexual explicitness is not an element.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 8:21 PM
Interaction is an element. Read the cite from Kongs I posted at 4:55. The affected child/children in this case would likely have no idea who the guy is. He doesn’t meet the Kongs standard.
So, if someone were to take him fishing and lose him….
Pablo on August 14, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Bingo.
The best solution is to use the law in the exact same way as Mr. Creep, instead of running off to nanny-state clockwatchers who rarely care about more than when and where their next coffee break is going to be.
Stalk him like he stalks children. Take photographs and video of him as he goes about his creepy business. Put up a website and update it to broadcast his whereabouts and actions at all times.
If the clockwatchers decide you’re the bad guy for doing that, concerned parties can block his view whenever he’s holding a camera. Being obnoxious is not illegal, and if he has a right to be in a public place, so does a camera-blocker. Frustrate his efforts in every way physically possible without doing anything illegal. If he gets angry and attacks, said parties can document it and have him arrested for assault. Wash, rinse, and repeat until he gets the message.
angryoldfatman on August 14, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Of course I don’t like this guy at all, but:
Why don’t people focus their energy on the actual criminal pedophiles (there are tons of them) that are back on the streets from prison and probably in their neighborhoods. Follow THOSE guys around because it is almost certain that they will do it again.
It seems like this guy is more on a suicide mission than anything else and/or is looking for attention. He’s pushing the limits of legalities, knows the loopholes and wants someone to hurt him.
nottakingsides on August 14, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Yeah, ignore that guy over there who has confessed to being a sicko. Use up all effort finding hidden sickos who don’t announce themselves.
Gee, we can’t possibly do both of those things simultaneously. Just like we can’t fight terrorism here and in Iraq, or lower taxes and cut government spending or (insert diversionary false dichotomy here).
angryoldfatman on August 14, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Now, you’re just making crap up. Interaction is not an element. It’s the act of the defendant and the defendant’s state of mind that is relevant, — not the child’s.
Blake on August 14, 2007 at 11:04 PM
No, there has to be some involvement with the child. You cannot harrass/annoy someone and leave them not knowing you exist. The act does not interfere with the child in this case. Kongs, which is the only argument I’ve seen that this statute would be relevant, does not apply. The facts of the two aren’t even close.
angryoldfatman, yeah…something like that. I was thinking about a viral “Warning” poster, along the lines of a Wanted poster too. Put the creep’s face everywhere so that people are maddogging him everywhere he goes. That would have the added benefit of forewarning everyone who looks after kids.
Or, he could maybe fall down a well on Lassie’s day off.
Pablo on August 15, 2007 at 2:14 AM
I haven’t read through all of the comments, so apologies if I repeat another commenter’s efforts.
Jack McClellan spent some 25 minutes on the air by phone with radio host Rick Roberts of KFMB 760 in San Diego, just about two weeks ago.
This isn’t accuratet. He admitted that his regular routine was to go to public children’s activities at least four days a week, like huge birthday parties in parks, and try to hug as many little girls as he could. When asked directly if he intentionally sought out little girls to hug, he said yes, but that the hugs were always consensual. Rick asked him how old these “consensually” hugged girls were, and he answered “tennish”. He would often pretend to be a paid photographer for parents at musical recitals, sneaking his way backstage to take pics of kids “preparing” (getting dressed). Then he’d post the pictures, with dates and addresses, on his website for other pedophiles to consider.
His original website included very detailed discussions of numerous legal and illegal drugs that he has used and recommended for enhancing the pleasurable sensations of touch while being around the children.
Rick offered Jack $1,000 cash if he would submit to a psychiatric evaluation. McClellan considered the offer for a moment, then asked how long it would take. Rick told him that he would be confined for anywhere from 3 days to 2 weeks to complete the process. Jack then refused the offer, saying that he couldn’t go that long without being near the kids.
It was primarily based upon the taped phone conversation with Rick Roberts, and other information gathered by the radio station, that the Santa Clarita judge approved the application for the restraining order against McClellan.
I’d have to disagree with Patterico, the TRO isn’t going too far. This oxygen thief has publicly declared his intentions, and they are no good. He should not be able to hang around places where vulnerable minors can be found. The order doesn’t prevent him from going places he needs to go. He can go grocery shopping, or to the courthouse to defend himself, because he isn’t doing those things to stalk kids. Any behavior on his part that follows his admitted desires is prohibited, and should be.
Freelancer on August 15, 2007 at 9:32 AM
No, there’s much more. There are affidavits from dozens of parents and other adults who have confronted McClellan for being present at events, and in places, that he had no right to be. That he took closeup, detailed photos of children and posted them on a publicly declared pedophelia website, with the stated intention of sharing the information, including addresses, among other pedophiles. etc, etc.
His past actions are not limited to stalking and photography from afar. He attempts to “play” with the children, and to hug the little girls when an opportunity presents itself, and he admits that this is for his own sexual gratification. How is this not to be considered unacceptable behavior? How many other TROs exist naming someone who hasn’t committed a crime “yet”?
Yes, on first glimpse this looks like a case of society imposing an unconstitutional standard by attempting to prevent undesirable actions, but this guy’s existing actions, for which he shows neither regret, remorse, nor any likelihood of stopping, put children at risk from “more harmful” people of his sort.
Freelancer on August 15, 2007 at 9:40 AM