The Right to Be a Sleazebag
Jacob Sullum | August 15, 2007, 11:15am
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."
smacky | August 15, 2007, 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.
smacky | August 16, 2007, 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.
