The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office has decided not to pursue charges against self-proclaimed (but nonpracticing) pedophile Jack McClellan, concluding that the terms of the court order he violated were not adequately explained to him. That order, which was issued based on his public discussion of his sexual attraction to little girls, commanded him to stay at least 30 feet from every minor in California; a new order issued Friday makes it 30 feet from places where children congregate, including schools, playgrounds, and child care centers. On Saturday McClellan told reporters, "I have to leave the state, really. I mean, I can't live here under this Orwellian protocol, whatever you want to call it. It's just nightmarish." I noted the First Amendment implications of McClellan's case, which seems ready-made for law school discussion, a couple weeks ago.
Jack McClellan Zoned Out of California
Comments to "Jack McClellan Zoned Out of California":
Brian Sorgatz | August 27, 2007, 6:55pm | #
I should tell the county clerk about my irresistible urge to rape jurors.Brian Sorgatz | August 27, 2007, 7:01pm | #
Actually, I do take this guy's predicament seriously. However anyone feels about child molestation, McClellan can't help liking little girls any more than, say, Jonathan Rauch can help liking men. He has to effectively take a vow of celibacy that most straight and gay people don't. That sucks. Give him a little break, California.Brian Sorgatz | August 27, 2007, 7:04pm | #
Not that I think he shouldn't be celibate (i.e. avoid sexual contact with little girls). Just that society can meet him halfway for the unusual sacrifice he's making.Furious Masturbator | August 27, 2007, 7:05pm | #
Is this any different than the way homosexuals were treated a century ago?squarooticus | August 27, 2007, 7:08pm | #
Is this any different than the way homosexuals were treated a century ago?Probably not, but at least one of the reasons is different: the whole issue of consent, which minors share with their guardians and (whether appropriate or not) the state.
smacky | August 27, 2007, 7:18pm | #
Just that society can meet him halfway for the unusual sacrifice he's making.Oh yeah, what a "sacrifice" he's making. He's such a martyr. Jeez, we are practically crucifying him! McClellan can fuck off. He's put himself in this situation. He has a right to say whatever he wants, but he also has to accept the fact that people can see him as a public threat and a public nuisance, as such things exist, and deal with him accordingly. And no it's not the same thing as the treatment of homosexuals, Furious Masturbator, because homosexuals don't prey on innocents.
Leonardo | August 27, 2007, 7:21pm | #
If this guy commits no crime then why is he run out of the state by law enforcement officials? If parents want to run him out in an unofficial vigilante operation, they can do that. And they would be breaking the law.Not the real Dan T. | August 27, 2007, 7:24pm | #
If Californians don't want to live in the same state as Messr. McClellan, they can move.Anonymo the Anonymous | August 27, 2007, 7:35pm | #
IFtC? WSPTotC?Jacob, I really think one of your posts on this subject should have been Operation: Mindcrime. 'tis a shame really.
Ramsey | August 27, 2007, 7:41pm | #
Maybe girls are different, but as a 13 year old boy I was far from "innocent." I love how some arbitrary legal age can define innocence. At the age of 12.5, I was legally able to shoot a deer in the face, skin it, and eat its heart. That is a pretty intense experience. If I wanted to put my PP (12.5 year old term) in a 16 year old it would have made us both sex offenders. Then I joined the army at 17, ready to go off and fight for 4 years, but I couldn't vote, because I was too young and "innocent." Turned 18, went to Kosovo to shoot Serbians and keep down the ethnic violence, but I could not have a beer, because I was not mature enough yet.Face it, sex is part of the whole sloppy thing called life. Teach your kids not to let the creepy man diddle them and move on with your day. Worry more about their creepy priest/family friend/relative. It is far more likely that they will die in a car wreck anyways.
Well raised children should be tough, smart, and worldly. Raising them in plastic bubbles will not make them better people, it will make them into cripples with no sense of self efficacy and an inflated sense of self worth.
Now, that all said, if the guy is caught diddling a little one, by all means slam his pecker in the cell door on his way in. Until he commits the crime he is the creepy neighbor, not a criminal. Making him stay 30 feet from anyone under 18 reeks of the nanny state, and makes me want to spit.
smacky | August 27, 2007, 7:43pm | #
At the age of 12.5, I was legally able to shoot a deer in the face, skin it, and eat its heart.Did you belong to the church of Satan or something? Why would you shoot a deer in the face, anyway? I smell a heaping helping of bullshit, and it's not coming from my posts.
As I said in a previous thread, the proper thing for the community to do would be make McClellan's life a living hell, because he is clearly asking for it. Making allusions to burning down his home if it were legal, shoving a hot poker up his ass if it were legal, or other sundry tortures isn't illegal, either -- and if it is, then he is guilty of the same thing: harassment and/or menace.
crimethink | August 27, 2007, 7:55pm | #
slightly OT: Sen Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested in the Minneapolis airport Aug 8 after an undercover cop, apparently serving as bathroom monitor, noticed him tapping his feet while he was sitting on the can, which the officer interpreted as an invitation to sexual activity (?!).Ramsey | August 27, 2007, 8:01pm | #
Grew up in Montana, shot deer to eat them, not to stuff them. Shot it in the eye from about 60 yards with a Marlin lever action .32 Special. You aim for the face/head so you ruin less meat. Field dressing/skinning is just a necessary step to converting an animal into meat. I ate the heart because that has been the way my family did it for generations, and it is pretty good eating.Where would you shoot it? Dead is dead. Face probably hurts less than the lungs or guts.
Funny story, my first dear was a doe with horns, the state fish and game didn't know what to do, since it was buck season. Turns out it is about 1 deer in 10000 that is born hermaphroditic.
wsdave | August 27, 2007, 8:01pm | #
"Maybe girls are different, but as a 13 year old boy I was far from "innocent."A guy I knew in high school had his first time sex with an 11 year old girl (about the same age as McClellan is looking for). It may seem horrible until you consider that she came on to him, and he was 9 at the time. And that was 30 years ago.
"Well raised children should be tough, smart, and worldly. Raising them in plastic bubbles will not make them better people, it will make them into cripples with no sense of self efficacy and an inflated sense of self worth."
True dat.
Ramsey | August 27, 2007, 8:01pm | #
Sorry about the inconsistency between dear/deer. I even previewed!The Wine Commonsewer | August 27, 2007, 8:05pm | #
Brian, I'd cut him some slack except he's been keeping a public website directing wannabe pedophiles to the best spots to find little girls.And maybe you're right, maybe pedophilia is hard wired. That'd be a tough break but he's not shown a willingness to meet me half way by keeping his mouth and website shut about where to find cute little girls.
the proper thing for the community to do would be make McClellan's life a living hell
Smacky, I think that the GP has been working on that. Saw a video of him on the news the other day where he was struggling to get his clothes on inside a car. Now maybe he was just taking a snooze in his skivvies or maybe something a little more sinister. I don't know. He sure was scrambling around to get dressed inside that beater car though.
And, of course, we must do this.
Ramsey | August 27, 2007, 8:06pm | #
Oh yeah, I am also now a student at that den of liberals, Univ. of Wisc, Madison. Strange thing, life.Grumble, Grumble, no concealed carry, grumble, grumble....
wsdave | August 27, 2007, 8:08pm | #
smacky,Should I be run out of town or threatened by my town for exposing where the best place to find Republicans/Democrats/NeoNazis/Communists/Union members/Big businessfolk/Christians/Jews/Muslims/Abortionists/Anti-Abortionists/Politicians/Police/Etc. in case you wanted to do bad or illegal things to them?
wtf | August 27, 2007, 8:24pm | #
smacky, have you always been such a histrionic bitch?Aresen | August 27, 2007, 8:36pm | #
Jack McClellan Zoned Out of CaliforniaI thought everyone in California was zoned out.
Johnny D. | August 27, 2007, 9:01pm | #
And maybe you're right, maybe pedophilia is hard wired. That'd be a tough break but he's not shown a willingness to meet me half way by keeping his mouth and website shut about where to find cute little girls.It'd be even easier if we'd get rid of that goddamned 1st amendment!
Informed Source | August 27, 2007, 9:03pm | #
The August 27th, 2007 New York Times has a headline, "Man Who PutGirls’ 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.)"
David | August 27, 2007, 10:00pm | #
smacky, have you always been such a histrionic bitch?wtf,
What the fuck kind of post is that? Why not just argue that McClellan is being unfairly targeted if you feel that way and leave it at that?
And for what it's worth, if it were my kid's school that this prick was lurking around, a court order would be the least of his worries.
bourgeoiscowboy | August 27, 2007, 10:50pm | #
You guys can claim whatever you want, but preying on children, and/or directing others on appropriate ways to prey on children, is completely unacceptable. Comparing potential child-molesters and confessed paedophiles to homosexuals is also disgusting - the issue is not only of consent, but also the predatorial nature of creeps such as McLellan."Until he commits the crime he is the creepy neighbor, not a criminal."
Let's allow this piece of human garbage to ruin a child's life before we take any action!
BG | August 27, 2007, 11:12pm | #
This guy should try to hook up with adult women who have turner syndrome.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_syndrome
He's not too far from Nevada, and I've got to figure that there are some prostitutes with turners in that state. Soliciting their serivces may be the only way he can indulge his sexual fantasies without violating anyone's rights.
I think the court order is probably unduly burdensome to comply with and sets a dangerous precedent(sp?) since this McClellan hasn't committed a crime. But I also think the public's hostility towards the guy is understandable and probably justified. If he doesn't want to be a pariah; he should retract his statement about "if only it were legal, I would do it..." and say he will not do it regardless of his desires because a kid can't give valid consent. (Also see my above suggeston about turner syndrome.)
The Wine Commonsewer | August 27, 2007, 11:16pm | #
It'd be even easier if we'd get rid of that goddamned 1st amendment!See that's the thing. Amendment 1 also covers those guys that follow McClellan around with a video camera. Free speech man. Taking pictures of him is no diff than taking pictures of the little girls. He don't like it much neither at least based upon his reaction to being videotaped getting dressed in his car that aired on the evening news. same same.
Ramsey | August 27, 2007, 11:24pm | #
Which leads one to wonder, if the intent is the same as the deed, should we lock David up for being a violent criminal?I suggest that we should just as a community ostracize and threaten him.
Just kidding, but boy, pot meet kettle
NP | August 27, 2007, 11:38pm | #
smacky,I know you mean well, but your last comment was one of the most extraordinary exercises in vile reciprocity I've ever seen.
hke | August 27, 2007, 11:51pm | #
California has a large number of ghost towns available out in the Mojave desert.The Wine Commonsewer | August 27, 2007, 11:54pm | #
Oh and Johnny D, to be clear about cutting Jack Slack. I meant that I, personally, ain't cutting his sorry ass any slack because he has shown zero willingness to respect the privacy of others. Most notably little girls. That is separate from and irrespective of anything the courts have decided.Perhaps under different circumstances I could be a little more understanding.
Taking pictures of minor children without parental consent is immoral. Might be legal, but it's clearly immoral. He's enjoyed a good run and protected himself with the marginally legal. Now the marginally legal is running him out of town. Different issue, but my give a shit is broke.
BTW, out of curiosity do you find restraining orders to be un-libertarian, unconstitutional, or both? In this case? Or in any case?
Ramsey | August 27, 2007, 11:55pm | #
Having been "bad touched" by the older son of a family friend when I was very little, I think I am qualified to say "eh, it sucked, but not that bad." It was less traumatizing than losing the family dog.Kids are resilient little critters. I kicked the guys ass when I was 16, sucked it up and drove on with my airborne mission. In other words, I got on with living. Some of the greatest societies to ever walk the earth were filled with perverts and pederasts.
So really, try to dial back the "Oh my god, won't somebody think of the children!" histrionics.
Save your bile for the grandmother killing cops, corrupt politicians, shitty journalism, and unsafe roadways. Kidnapping and murder hurt far fewer children than unsafe drivers.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 12:04am | #
Making allusions to burning down his home if it were legal, shoving a hot poker up his ass if it were legal, or other sundry tortures isn't illegal, either -- and if it is, then he is guilty of the same thing: harassment and/or menace.Is this what you guys are taking issue with?
This is being a histrionic bitch? This is vile reciprocity?
No, this is a perfect illustration of what a stand up guy McClellan is. Sure, he's got free speech rights. So long as Smack doesn't shove a red hot poker up McClellan's ass, she's also free to say whatever she'd like to.
That's actually a much more pleasant visual than what comes to mind when Jack says he doesn't like to fuck babies because he can't deal with shitty diapers.
prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 5:43am | #
Just got finished rereading Orwell's1984. Can someone explain to me how punishing an admission of being attracted to very young girls is any way different from what the Thought Police do in 1984 in reaction to crimethink (the action of thinking of doing something, not the person posting under that name here), other than the degree of severity with which it is punished?Much as I would want to keep this guy away from my daughters, once you start punishing people for what they're thinking, it seems a quick slide into the horrors described in 1984, as politicians compete to see who can introduce the harshest legislation to punish doubleplusungoodthinkers.
Jennifer | August 28, 2007, 8:11am | #
If he doesn't want to be a pariah; he should retract his statement about "if only it were legal, I would do it..."There are people who would say the same thing about drugs. "If you don't want to be a pariah, don't make statements about 'if pot were legal I'd smoke it every day,' and don't post a website talking about the best places to get pot (which I'd do if it were legal)."
The guy has not harmed anyone, and is being hounded solely for legally protected (albeit repulsive) speech.
Dennis | August 28, 2007, 8:42am | #
This is what I'm on about! Violence inherent in the system! Help! I'm being repressed!To be clear: does anyone here think that the 30ft-from-any-minor (/30ft-from-any-minor-zone) order would be appropriate if he'd merely declared that he's a pedophile, wrote about his feelings on a website, &c -- that is, with none of the photography or direction-giving?
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 9:04am | #
Sorry, smacky, I usually agree with most of your posts, but in this case I would bitch slap you, if it were legal.jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 9:14am | #
bourgeoiscowboy | August 27, 2007, 10:50pm | #...Fuck it. Let's all pack up and move to jails.
Let's allow this piece of human garbage to ruin a child's life before we take any action!
For those of you who seem to support what California is doing, would you feel the same way about a man with rape fantasies involving adult women? He's never actually raped anybody, mind you, but he posts explicit fantasies about what he'd like to do to an unwilling woman, and would do to unwilling women if rape were legal, and talks about the best places to find women too small or unarmed to fight back. But he's never, ever actually forced himself on anybody.
Dan T. | August 28, 2007, 10:39am | #
It seems as though this is a case where the government of CA deserves some credit. McCellan was given intially a restraining order that seemed impossible to follow - that is, to stay 30 feet from any child.Now, the state has revised that order to make it 30 feet from playgrounds, schools, etc. That is not unreasonable and should be easy enough for McCellan to follow. It's common sense, too, as he has no legitimate business lurking around these areas. He's just being hysterical by saying that he'll have to leave California over this.
Jennifer | August 28, 2007, 10:55am | #
It seems as though this is a case where the government of CA deserves some credit. The rape fantasist was given intially a restraining order that seemed impossible to follow - that is, to stay 30 feet from any woman.Now, the state has revised that order to make it 30 feet from beauty salons, Curves for Women franchises, etc. That is not unreasonable and should be easy enough for the rape fantasist to follow. It's common sense, too, as he has no legitimate business lurking around these areas. He's just being hysterical by saying that he'll have to leave California over this.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 10:58am | #
David,Sorry if calling a spade a spade offends you.
Smacking is being the kind of idiot who would try to maintain libertarian street cred by saying it's okay if this one particular guy is strung up by his balls in the town square for being icky and weird, as long as the government isn't the entity doing the stringing. In this thread and the other thread about this weirdo she's come across as hysterical and her posts have been repugnant. Save the children wacko rhetoric isn't limited to big-government types and fundamentalists, apparently.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 10:58am | #
*smackyDan T. | August 28, 2007, 10:59am | #
Jennifer, isn't it a little insulting to women to equate them with children in terms of being able to take care of and defend themselves?Your analogy fails because we recognize that children require certain protections that adults do not.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 11:02am | #
And for what it's worth, if it were my kid's school that this prick was lurking around, a court order would be the least of his worries.
All right, Mr. Cowboy, you're a badass. You'd kill him or hurt him or whatever. Fine. You and smacky can go plan your murder/lynching/forcible exile/whatever you need to swell your hearts with pride in the knowledge that you've shit on justice for the children.
David | August 28, 2007, 11:03am | #
I don't support the original restraining order, and it was essentially impossible for McClellan to abide by. The current one, which prohibits him from hanging out nearThis guy's sending mixed messages by announcing that he'd like to fuck children if it were legal, saying that he won't so long as it isn't, then going around with a camera and photographing kids, and maintaining a kid watching website. It's not like he's even making the appearance avoiding temptation. Mostly, he's just being a creepy prick, and trying to see how much he can get away with while claiming that he's being persecuted for free speech.
What I've been asking myself all morning is whether his type of free speech is even possible without the state to prevent his neighbors from simply disappearing him?
As to the "gentleman" in your example, I don't have much of a problem with his being barred from lurking around in the places that mentions on his website. I see it this way, if he says he wants to rape women, but won't do it, and the best place to find easily raped women is the alley behind Curves, and he's found in that alley... I don't think I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't there to rape someone.
Jennifer | August 28, 2007, 11:09am | #
Your analogy fails because we recognize that children require certain protections that adults do not.Wrong. Earlier posters pointed out -- quite reasonably -- that you can't compare pedophilia to homosexuality because with pedophilia, there's issues raised involving the lack of consent. Those are the exact same consent issues that arise when you're talking about a man with forcible-rape fantasies.
It is not illegal to fantasize or write about rape; it is only the action itself that is illegal. Apparently, folks here think that mere thoughts and fantasies about harmful actions should be just as illegal as actions which cause actual demonstrable harm to another.
Dan T. | August 28, 2007, 11:17am | #
It is not illegal to fantasize or write about rape; it is only the action itself that is illegal. Apparently, folks here think that mere thoughts and fantasies about harmful actions should be just as illegal as actions which cause actual demonstrable harm to another.But the state is not taking the position that McCellan should be punished for his fantasies.
A restraining order of this type is not punishment, it's a tool to protect a person or persons from harm.
You're the one drawing the parallel between the need for children to be protected and the need for society to protect adults from a similar situation. I'm saying that it's not inconsitant to treat the two situations differently.
Dan T. | August 28, 2007, 11:19am | #
Dan T.,Analogies don't fail just because you say they do.
You're correct. In this case, the analogy failed for a totally different reason. That is, it ignored the whole point that children and adults are not the same in terms of what kind of protection they need from society.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 11:55am | #
It's not illegal to fantasize about mass murder either. Let's try this: Set up a website describing how much fun it would be to pick off elementary school kids with a sniper rifle as they get off the bus. Now try hanging around near a public school with a 12 gage and a couple of .44's and see how far your first and second amendment protections get you.On another note, it isn't illegal to fantasize about shooting illegals as they cross the border either but a lot of H&R regulars were sure pissed off at those Minute Men for exercising they're rights to carry weapons and free associate with whomever they wanted to while exercising free speech describing how they feel about illegals.
The first amendment doesn't buy you anything but a right to be free from the government trying to shut you up. That's it. It doesn't free you from the consequences of running off at the mouth.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 11:56am | #
So, Jennifer, how do you feel about the restraining order my neighbor got to keep her ex-husband away from her home. He hasn't actually done anything except threaten to kill her.Ah, but if he qualifies it by saying he won't kill her so long as it's illegal to, it's OK for him to park in front of her house everyday.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 12:07pm | #
TWC,I would have to ask, to what extent did he threaten to kill her? Did he take any action towards that end? Was there previous instances of violence that took place between them? I'm fairly certain that a simple "i'm going to kill you" wasn't enough to obtain the restraining order.
Dan T. | August 28, 2007, 12:20pm | #
I guess if you take the extreme libertarian position that the state has no interest in or right to prevent one citizen from harming another (they can only punish after the fact), then you'd have to say that all restraining orders are unjust towards the person being restrained.I guess it's a good thing few people take this position, but it's consistant at least.
BG | August 28, 2007, 12:24pm | #
JenniferThe difference between saying "I would smoke pot if it were legal." and " I would have sex with a kid if it were legal." is that smoking pot doesn't violate anyone's rights and (I would argue) should be legal. Saying you would like to violate someone else's rights is not (and should not be) a crime; but doing so may cause you to be classified as an asshole in the public imagination.
And to be clear; yes, McClellan is within his rights to say that he would like to have sex with little girls, and would do so if he were allowed. He should not be subject to legal penalties for it and I am not defending the restraining order.
To give an analogy, consider if some guy was known to go around publicly stating:
"I sure would like to rape some women. I won't do it since it is illegal, but I wish they would change the law so I could. By the way, here's a website with examples of the type of women I might consider raping if I could."
This would not justify legal penalties but it would be understandable if this guy had a hard time making friends. And I probably wouldn't blame people if they ostracized him, expressed hostility towards him, shouted insults at him, etc.
Dan T. | August 28, 2007, 12:31pm | #
And to be clear; yes, McClellan is within his rights to say that he would like to have sex with little girls, and would do so if he were allowed. He should not be subject to legal penalties for it and I am not defending the restraining order.Once again, the point of a restraining order is not to penalize.
prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 12:35pm | #
TWC -- So, if an ex-husband who has never, ever hit or physically abused his ex says, in the heat of a custody battle, "I'm so mad at you. If it wasn't illegal, I'd kill you", would this thoughtcrime be sufficient reason to issue a restraining order against the husband barring him from being around bars, restaurants, or any other place where divorced women are likely to hang out? Would that even be sufficient cause for a judge with libertarian values to issue a TRO against the husband?If the answer to either is "yes", please turn in your libertarian secret decoder ring.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 12:36pm | #
Once again, the point of a restraining order is not to penalize.
Maybe not in most cases, as they are usually confined to staying away from one person in particular. That's not very hard to accomplish.
However, in this case, where the guy can get in trouble simply by walking to the local convenience store, the restraining order does, actually, penalize him.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 12:37pm | #
Forgot to close my tag :(Once again, the point of a restraining order is not to penalize.Maybe not in most cases, as they are usually confined to staying away from one person in particular. That's not very hard to accomplish.
However, in this case, where the guy can get in trouble simply by walking to the local convenience store, the restraining order does, actually, penalize him.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 12:38pm | #
I defer to David's analysis. :-)Jimmahdageek, I sense you are saying that under some circumstances restraining orders are appropriate. But not against Jack and maybe not as a protection for my neighbor Denise. But if her ex had a website where he wrote about how much fun it would be to slit the bitch's throat and dismember her body, then you might consider a restraining order? Particularly if he beat her regularly when they were married? Still not completely objective criteria and still requires somebody to make a subjective value judgment. Which is what the judge did for Jack. Made a value judgment that is. One you happen to subjectively disagree with.
Not that restraining orders are worth much mind you.
Disclaimer: I'm not entirely sure how I feel about restraining orders in general. The problem is that law abiding citizens are hamstrung and constrained when it comes to self-defense which distorts the "market" (if you will). For example, my neighbor can't simply chase her ex off by firing a few rounds from a shotgun in his direction or she'll go to jail. The cops aren't coming if there is a problem until she's assumed room temp. It's complicated.
prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 12:41pm | #
And to be clear; yes, McClellan is within his rights to say that he would like to have sex with little girls, and would do so if he were allowed. He should not be subject to legal penalties for it and I am not defending the restraining order.Once again, the point of a restraining order is not to penalize.
OK, Dan T., for the sake of argument let's say that I post the following statement here on this thread: "I would like to do bad things to minor children if it were legal. I would like to rape women if it were legal. I would like to wring Dan T.'s scrawny little neck for saying things I don't like -- if it were legal."
Time to issue a TRO against me to protect teh chillrun, teh wimmin, and teh trolls? Because it's not about punishment, but protecting others against that horrid, horrid First Amendment thingy.
Matter of fact, I think we need to take out a TRO against you barring you from posting on this website, because your contrarianist comments might harm children by causing them to grow up incapable of using logic.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 12:50pm | #
But if her ex had a website where he wrote about how much fun it would be to slit the bitch's throat and dismember her body, then you might consider a restraining order?No, I would not consider a restraining order based on this alone. I have had similar fantasies about exes before. I just haven't posted them on the web.
Particularly if he beat her regularly when they were married?Add this to the fray, and, yes, you have grounds for the restraining order. He's already shown the willingness and ability to carry out violent acts against your neighbor.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 12:52pm | #
prolefeed, I'm not surrendering the decoder ring. Mine is an antique and quite valuable.Point taken, btw, but I do know a few guys who probably should be restrained from being around divorced women (not just the ex-wives). :-)
And as I mentioned above, restraining orders are largely ineffective. I guess I am trying to see if it's restraining orders generally you guys are against or just Jack's or somewhere in the middle.
I don't know the legal history behind restraining orders but it seems like the use of same has exploded in the last 25 years.
I'm not even sure restraining orders would be acceptable in a more libertarian world than the one we live in.
BTW, Jack's restraining order was modified so that he's not going to get into trouble for walking into Jimmah's convenience store.
Lastly, nobody has commented on my pre-Columbine scenario outlined at 11:55 am.
David | August 28, 2007, 12:52pm | #
Disclaimer: I'm not entirely sure how I feel about restraining orders in general. The problem is that law abiding citizens are hamstrung and constrained when it comes to self-defense which distorts the "market" (if you will). For example, my neighbor can't simply chase her ex off by firing a few rounds from a shotgun in his direction or she'll go to jail. The cops aren't coming if there is a problem until she's assumed room temp. It's complicated.Neither am I. For the most part, I don't think they really ever prevent anything terrible from happening. How many people wind up getting killed by the person they have a restraining order against? In those cases, they're more like a directions on where to start the investigation.
David | August 28, 2007, 12:53pm | #
No, I would not consider a restraining order based on this alone. I have had similar fantasies about exes before. I just haven't posted them on the web.And why haven't you done so, Jimmy?
BG | August 28, 2007, 1:04pm | #
Once again, the point of a restraining order is not to penalize.Point taken.
One problem with this particular restraining order is that it seems to impose a much greater burden of compliance than a normal restraining order. Typically (as I understand) a restraing order only prohibits the restrained person from coming near a specific individual and a few buildings (like that person's home and place of work). This one though, requires the guy to stay away from a wide range of facilities and probably make significant portions of the city off-limits.
Another potential issue is that a restraining order is normally issued in response to specific overt action indicating a potential threat to particular individual(s); while this one seems to be at least partially in response to an inclination and is not protecting anyone specific.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 1:05pm | #
David,The posting on the web? Because I'm too lazy and don't really feel the need to do so, I guess.
The slitting their throats? Because it would be quite messy...and I don't really care for cleaning up afterwards.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 1:13pm | #
You aim for the face/head so you ruin less meat.Where would you shoot it? Dead is dead. Face probably hurts less than the lungs or guts.
Should I be run out of town or threatened by my town for exposing where the best place to find Republicans/Democrats/NeoNazis/Communists/Union members/Big businessfolk/Christians/Jews/Muslims/Abortionists/Anti-Abortionists/Politicians/Police/Etc. in case you wanted to do bad or illegal things to them?
wsdave,
Maybe. Let the particular community decide that. If you are living in a community of Christians and are giving the best locations of where to do bad or illegal things to Christians, then yeah, I wouldn't blame the Christians for chasing your sorry ass out of town.
See that's the thing. Amendment 1 also covers those guys that follow McClellan around with a video camera. Free speech man. Taking pictures of him is no diff than taking pictures of the little girls. He don't like it much neither at least based upon his reaction to being videotaped getting dressed in his car that aired on the evening news. same same.
TWC,
Exactly! That's what I've been saying all along. Play by his own rules. If he is allowed to play by them, so is everyone else.
vile reciprocity
NP,
Ha. Ha ha ha. I guess I am The Vile Reciprocitor!
*twirls mustache sinisterly*
No, if you want to see vile reciprocity, read the Old Testament.
Sorry, I don't see anything questionable about treating McClellan the way he is treating others.
Save your bile for the grandmother killing cops, corrupt politicians, shitty journalism, and unsafe roadways. Kidnapping and murder hurt far fewer children than unsafe drivers.
Oh yeah. Hey everybody, forget your gripes about child rapists and murderers! Shitty journalism is a much worse crime, according to Ramsey. Because people shouldn't be responsible for developing their own critical thinking skills. Look at me! I'm such a histrionic bitch!
Save the children wacko rhetoric isn't limited to big-government types and fundamentalists, apparently.
wtf,
You're a fucking moron. "Save the children wacko rhetoric" is only rhetoric when it has nothing to do with the children. This, in contrast, directly concerns the safety of minors. At no point did I advocate for the restraining order, nor did I openly agree with the government action. I do advocate the community effectively running that asshole out of town, and tracking his whereabouts on the internet and elsewhere, for the benefit of other interested communities.
Jennifer, isn't it a little insulting to women to equate them with children in terms of being able to take care of and defend themselves?
I think it's more than a little insulting, albeit perhaps unintentionally.
Your analogy fails because we recognize that children require certain protections that adults do not.
I have to agree with Dan T. on this.
Ah, but if he qualifies it by saying he won't kill her so long as it's illegal to, it's OK for him to park in front of her house everyday.
David makes a very good point about this. Intent can be proven. Remember that astronaut who was charged with intent to (I don't remember exactly what the charge was...battery? Murder?) -- well, anyway, she was charged on intent to commit two separate crimes because she was found with weapons and wearing a soiled diaper and whatever other evidence they had collected. McClellan can still be proven to have had ill intentions if he is hanging around parks and daycare centers and whatnot. Like David said, if someone says "I would kill my wife if it were legal" and then parks his car outside of her house every day, the intent is proven. If you were in the wife's position, I think you'd be more than supportive of a restraining order.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 1:16pm | #
Crap. I forgot to actually type in my reply to Ramsey. Let's try this again:You aim for the face/head so you ruin less meat.
I heard that it is bad to shoot deer in the head because if you hit its brain, that can expose humans to the neural disease that lots of wild deer apparently suffer from, and has the ability to make humans very sick (it's transmittable to humans, I think).
Where would you shoot it?
Not in the face or head.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 1:16pm | #
Good point(s) David.The difference between saying "I would smoke pot if it were legal." and " I would have sex with a kid if it were legal." is that smoking pot doesn't violate anyone's rights
BG, well said.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 1:22pm | #
No, I would not consider a restraining order based on this alone. I have had similar fantasies about exes before. I just haven't posted them on the web.Wow, jimmmydageek, congratulations! You're mentally ill.
prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 1:28pm | #
And as I mentioned above, restraining orders are largely ineffective. I guess I am trying to see if it's restraining orders generally you guys are against or just Jack's or somewhere in the middle.I'm OK with restraining orders when someone has physically done something violent in the past, and thus an expressed desire to commit a similar violent act is longer a thoughtcrime kinda deal, and the order is narrowly tailored to the specific tangible threat posed. Cause almost any infringement of liberty can and will be proposed by ambitious politicians in the name of protecting The Children TM, if we don't vigorously oppose such attempts, as anyone who has spent time watching politician in action can attest to.
prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 1:30pm | #
No, I would not consider a restraining order based on this alone. I have had similar fantasies about exes before. I just haven't posted them on the web.Ummm, actually, you just did post 'em -- albeit not in detail.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Oh, come on, smacky, don't tell me you haven't had fantasies about seriously hurting somebody that's hurt you before......I mean, here you are advocating the castration of this guy...and he hasn't even done anything to you!
smacky | August 28, 2007, 1:35pm | #
jimmydageek,Where did I advocate the castration of McClellan? Wait a second -- that's right, I never did. I'm just saying, he has to be prepared for the consequences of his actions. The consequences being however the community decides to deal with him.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 1:36pm | #
smacky | August 27, 2007, 7:46pm | #Ok, maybe not castration, but shoving a hot poker up his ass...
As I said in a previous thread, the proper thing for the community to do would be make McClellan's life a living hell, because he is clearly asking for it. Making allusions to burning down his home if it were legal, shoving a hot poker up his ass if it were legal, or other sundry tortures isn't illegal, either -- and if it is, then he is guilty of the same thing: harassment and/or menace.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 1:36pm | #
See, I knew you'd come back with "i didn't advocate castration!" LOL...Ah, but I did not advocate it. I was merely using it as an example. Reading skills, jimmy.
prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 1:37pm | #
The difference between saying "I would smoke pot if it were legal." and " I would have sex with a kid if it were legal." is that smoking pot doesn't violate anyone's rightsBG, well said.
Recently, the age of consent in Hawaii was raised from 14 to 16 (a change I agree with BTW). So, if someone advocates for changing it back to 14, are they advocating violating someone's rights? Were they advocating violating someone's rights when 14 was the legal limit, and they fought to keep it at 14 during the debate about raising it?
In other words, is it a violation of someone's rights to use the First Amendment to advocate changing a law that you think doesn't violate someone's rights even though many people think it does so violate? If so, wouldn't all prohibitions against certain behaviors, once ensconced in law, remain illegal in perpetuity because it would be a thoughtcrime to even consider changing them? By this logic, shouldn't we still be locking up people for having gay sex?
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Prole, we are not talking about 14 year olds here, we are talking about pre-pubescent girls, age 3-11, who have not yet formed the ability to consent. Oranges, man, Oranges.And, in short, No.
For the record, I'm against perpetual adolescence, which in our culture lasts until sometime into the late 20's or early 30's. I think everybody should be legal by, at the latest, age 14. Contracts, sexual encounters, buying beer, buying guns, driving, etc, etc.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 1:43pm | #
but shoving a hot poker up his ass...but only if that was legal.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 1:44pm | #
You're a fucking moron. "Save the children wacko rhetoric" is only rhetoric when it has nothing to do with the children. This, in contrast, directly concerns the safety of minors. At no point did I advocate for the restraining order, nor did I openly agree with the government action. I do advocate the community effectively running that asshole out of town, and tracking his whereabouts on the internet and elsewhere, for the benefit of other interested communities.
NO U.
You're a fucking hysterical asshole. You're advocating vigilante justice and trying to reconcile your SAVE THE CHILDREN WACKO RHETORIC with your supposedly libertarian ideals. This has nothing to do with actual living children and everything to do with you feeling icky because this guy is a creepy weirdo and has told the world about it. I'm not buying your bullshit about merely wanting to see him run out of town or merely harassed and spied upon wherever he tries to live, either- you want this fucker dead but you're too much of a coward to pull the trigger yourself.
Just cuz you say you don't want the government involved doesn't make anything you're advocating acceptable. You want a mob to lynch this guy for thoughtcrime. And you feel good about it because it's FOR THE CHILDREN. Fuck you.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 1:50pm | #
smacky | August 28, 2007, 1:37pm | #
Ah, but I did not advocate it. I was merely using it as an example. Reading skills, jimmy.
As I said in a previous thread, the proper thing for the community to do would be make McClellan's life a living hell, because he is clearly asking for it. Making allusions to burning down his home if it were legal, shoving a hot poker up his ass if it were legal, or other sundry tortures isn't illegal, either -- and if it is, then he is guilty of the same thing: harassment and/or menace.
You're advocating making this guy's life a living hell. You would make it a living hell by threatening to shove hot pokers up his ass. You are advocating the threat of having hot pokers shoved up his ass. This is something that you would like to see done, if it were not illegal. Tell me I'm wrong and explain how. My comprehension skills, not my reading skills, apparently aren't good enough...
Doc | August 28, 2007, 1:50pm | #
you want this fucker dead but you're too much of a coward to pull the trigger yourself.I'm your Huckleberry.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 1:51pm | #
GD! That's the 2nd time I fucked up tags today! Anyway, you get my point.smacky | August 28, 2007, 1:54pm | #
jimmydageek,Your HTML skills aren't great either, since we're on the topic. :)
NO U.
wtf,
Ha ha! NO U. What is this, the playground? You started this name-calling pissing-match. I don't see what you're so upset about, unless you're not sharing something. So what is it to you if I don't give a crap about the fate of this guy? If it's not acceptable to you, too bad. Lick it up, baby! :)
This is a large part of the reason I am no longer a Christian. Because sometimes turning the other cheek and praying isn't appropriate. Sometimes it is important to fight back.
Ultimately, I think the parents need to keep a close watch on their own children's activities and with whom they are interacting -- and (and I know I am going to receive lots of boos and hisses for this) not dress their children like trollops.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 2:03pm | #
Hysterical people post in all caps.Took me a minute but I eventually LOL.
Jon Benet | August 28, 2007, 2:04pm | #
Got something against trollops?prolefeed | August 28, 2007, 2:06pm | #
Prole, we are not talking about 14 year olds here, we are talking about pre-pubescent girls, age 3-11, who have not yet formed the ability to consent. Oranges, man, Oranges.And, in short, No.
For the record, I'm against perpetual adolescence, which in our culture lasts until sometime into the late 20's or early 30's. I think everybody should be legal by, at the latest, age 14. Contracts, sexual encounters, buying beer, buying guns, driving, etc, etc.
Really? "At the latest, age 14"? So you would consider making 13 or 12 the age of majority, but saying it should be 11 is the sign of a sick bastard? Because the majority of the residents of every single state in the union would say you just advocated for allowing adults to have sex with 14 year olds who "have not yet formed the ability to consent." Who determines that? Are you the sole and final arbiter of when the ability to consent takes place? During the debate over changing the age of consent to 16 in Hawaii, I received several emails from my boss' constituents advocating lowering the age of consent to as low as 10 years old, with the opinion that girls that young were capable of consenting. When I showed one of those emails to my coworkers, they suggested reporting this guy to the police -- for using his First Amendment right to lobby for a change in the law. Do you agree with them? Do you agree with the coworker who said that people who want an age of consent of 14 were sick bastards who deserved to be turned over to the police for advocating that view?
Apples, man. Appples.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 2:14pm | #
wtf,
Ha ha! NO U. What is this, the playground? You started this name-calling pissing-match. I don't see what you're so upset about, unless you're not sharing something. So what is it to you if I don't give a crap about the fate of this guy? If it's not acceptable to you, too bad. Lick it up, baby! :)
Your sense of humor is deficient. But I do appreciate you confirming what I said.
You're a repulsive and sorry excuse for a libertarian if you actually believe what you're typing. Two wrongs don't make a right. You might as well just wipe your ass with the Bill of Rights if that's the way you behave when confronted with someone you find repulsive.
I care because vigilante justice isn't justice. It's a travesty of justice.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 2:18pm | #
wtf,Oh, now you're the arbiter of justice? I see. So, god, tell me, what is the just thing to do with McClellan? Let him rub one out in his car next to playgrounds and turn a blind eye, even though public masturbation is criminal with or without a playground nearby? No wait, don't tell me: a real libertarian would advocate there being no indecency laws whatsoever -- exhibitionists would be free to fuck anywhere they please. So now I'm not a libertarian by your definition? I can only shrug, in that case.
Look, wtf, I don't know what definition of "libertarian" you are going by, but I don't think the community harassing McClellan is wrong in the context of him continuing to stalk and harass children. That's not vigilante justice. That's just repaying the favor. Vigilante justice would be killing him. At no point did I advocate anything of the sort. But supposing if I were to have done that, seriously, why would you care, and secondly, why would that no longer make me less of a libertarian? If anything, it would make me more of an anarchist, since the solution wouldn't be relying on the government.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 2:27pm | #
The last in a series of consecutive posts:In other words, wtf, tell me why I should care about the fate of this guy. He hasn't given me any reason to.
Jennifer | August 28, 2007, 2:38pm | #
he has to be prepared for the consequences of his actions. The consequences being however the community decides to deal with him.That's fine if the community decides to deal with him via ostracism-- I sure as hell wouldn't invite him to any party of mine, even though there are no children present. But if the community decides to be a lynch mob, that's another matter.
Dan: Jennifer, isn't it a little insulting to women to equate them with children in terms of being able to take care of and defend themselves?
Smacky: I think it's more than a little insulting, albeit perhaps unintentionally.
Smacky, did you actually read the context of my original statement that Trollboy quoted? I asked if a man who never actually raped a woman, but kept a blog detailing his rape fantasies, saying things like "I'd rape lots of women if rape were legal," and listing places where women hang out should be subject to the same penalties as this guy. Should such a rape fantasist be subject to a restraining order making him stay away from all places where women are likely to congregate? I would sure as hell say no. But if you think my statement somehow means I'm equating women with children, I suspect you're being oversensitive today.
Jennifer | August 28, 2007, 2:39pm | #
In other words, wtf, tell me why I should care about the fate of this guy. He hasn't given me any reason to.Because you're a fool if you think this will be the only incident of a person ever being restricted solely on the basis of what he writes. This precedent--done FOR THE CHILDREN ZOMFG!!!--will soon be used in other contexts; that outcome is more likely than the thought that this will be the only time in US history we see no "mission creep."
smacky | August 28, 2007, 2:44pm | #
Jennifer,Yes, I did read your entire statement. Perhaps Dan was distorting your analogy a little bit. Although I do think that children, as they do not have all of the responsibilities of adults, likewise require more protection than adults.
Should such a rape fantasist be subject to a restraining order making him stay away from all places where women are likely to congregate? I would sure as hell say no.
I would say it depends on the given community and how secure the women feel, and the other circumstances surrounding said hypothetical. If women start to see him hanging around and/or following them and photographing them, then I would not hold it against the women for attempting to get a restraining order against him. But I agree with other people here who have mentioned that restraining orders are a weak attempt at actual protection and don't magically create an impenetrable force field around a person who is in possession of one. Ultimately, people need to watch out for themselves.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 2:46pm | #
I don't know what the right thing to do is, smacky. But unlike you, at least I'll admit it. I think I know what the wrong thing to do is, though: convicting him of thoughtcrime and encouraging people to do what they will to him, wherever he goes.I don't know how the hell you made the leap to jacking off in cars and fucking in the streets.
You're drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. I don't know if this your pet issue or if you were hurt by some sicko in the past, but stating a willingness to suspend the law and be this guy's judge, jury and executioner is unreasonable.
Reading your other posts: are you seriously asking me why I would care if you or someone else put the business-end of a 12-gauge to this guy's skull and pulled the trigger? Are you really asking me that? Because if you are, I'm going to infer it to mean that you don't think taking a human life is any big deal, as long as you think you're perfectly justified in doing so.
So go ahead, smacky. Go kill him. Track him down and tie him up and shoot him in the head. One less scumbag in the world, right? And the government didn't get involved, so it's okay. And after that, kill the guy who cuts you off in traffic. You don't have any reason to care about him, do you? Or a guy who breaks into an old lady's house and rapes her at knifepoint before slitting her throat and robbing her. Go kill him, too.
But you won't, because in those cases you want the legal system to do your dirty work for you. It's just with your pet issue that you've the ability to summon your righteous rage and declare a human life unworthy of continuance. You hypocrite. You monster. You zealot.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 2:47pm | #
In other words, wtf, tell me why I should care about the fate of this guy. He hasn't given me any reason to.Apparently he has, since you are all worked up about what he might possibly do. Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a total creep, but he does not deserve any sort of punishment for simply being a creep.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 2:52pm | #
Prole, it's more complicated than this, but essentially I would come up with a reasonable way to peg the age of majority to biological maturity. Different for different people, I know. Different for boys than girls.My argument is that for most of our species existence on the planet biology has determined adulthood. It has only been in the last 100 years or so that we, as a culture, have decided that biology isn't a valid marker.
Just in my lifetime a new stage of life has been invented to cover the period from when adolescence used to end and when adults begin to act like adults (roughly 18-25). This stage (name escapes) is entirely a social construct and is unrelated to biology (although some will argue that teen age brains don't work the same as the brains of thirty year olds, which is true enough but 70 year old brains don't work the same as 30 year old brains either).
Anyway, without belaboring the subject, absent our culturally instituted maturity stunting mores, rules, and law, most kids can function quite well as adults by 14. I'm flexible though, I'd be happy if 18 really meant you were legal (trying buying a sixer or a .357).
I used to work for a guy who was laying railroad track at age 14 (10 hrs per day, 6 days per week) so he could support himself and his orphaned brother. He didn't have any regrets. Anecdotal, I know, but completely unheard of today. Not only would it not be possible in a world where any 16 year old that wants to work at Baskin Robbins has to get a work permit from THE SCHOOL, but everyone you know would be appalled if they heard about it.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 2:55pm | #
So go ahead, smacky. Go kill him. Track him down and tie him up and shoot him in the head. One less scumbag in the world, right? And the government didn't get involved, so it's okay. And after that, kill the guy who cuts you off in traffic. You don't have any reason to care about him, do you? Or a guy who breaks into an old lady's house and rapes her at knifepoint before slitting her throat and robbing her. Go kill him, too.But you won't, because in those cases you want the legal system to do your dirty work for you. It's just with your pet issue that you've the ability to summon your righteous rage and declare a human life unworthy of continuance. You hypocrite. You monster. You zealot.
wtf,
Whoa, you're getting a little dramatic here. Again, please direct me to the formal injunction where I advocated the murder of this guy. You need to take your medication, man. Beautiful soliloquy, though.
And since you're going to speculate into my personal life (no, I haven't been "hurt" by any "sickos" in the past, to my knowledge), maybe I should return the favor and start speculating as to why you are getting all frothy at the mouth because I happen to think this guy is a piece of shit. Are you a child molester, wtf? (Well, how do you like it? Yeah, speculation is pretty obnoxious when the shoe is on the other foot, isn't it?)
I think I know what the wrong thing to do is, though: convicting him of thoughtcrime
No, wtf, not convicting him of thoughtcrime. Real crime. Stalking, harassment, intimidation, invasion of privacy, provable intent -- if not criminal, then definitely worthy of civil prosecution.
wtf | August 28, 2007, 3:05pm | #
Yeah, yeah, apologies for melodrama.So, smacky, then go help convict him of real crime and see that he is punished appropriately. Fine. But until then, don't act like it's okay when you say all sorts of bad shit should happen to this guy even though he hasn't been convicted of anything.
Incidentally, I think there should be another version of Godwin's law that says anyone who defends the civil liberties of pervs will himself be accused of being a perv. It must be true! Any reasonable person would simply want them all shot in the head!
smacky | August 28, 2007, 3:07pm | #
Incidentally, I think there should be another version of Godwin's law that says anyone who defends the civil liberties of pervs will himself be accused of being a perv. It must be true! Any reasonable person would simply want them all shot in the head!Hey, in all fairness, I warned you that was coming, only because you were speculating that I had some terrible incident in my past.
BG | August 28, 2007, 3:18pm | #
prolefeedI am not exactly sure what I think the "right" age of consent is. Admittedly, the first probably 4-7 years after someone hits puberty is somewhat of a gray area for me, regarding whether I think the person is capable of granting valid consent to sex.
If someone were to propose some kind of mental competence test, instead of a cutoff age, I might consider it. Of course, I don't know if that would be feasable, and I would want there to be precautions against an objectively non-consentable(tm) person being "coached" into giving passing responses. In the absence of such a test, a (possiblly semi-arbitrary) cutoff age is preferable to a free-for-all.
And whatever room for reasonable disagreement there might be, I think its clear that pre-pubescents generally are incapable of granting sexual consent. The intellectual and physical developments of puberty are important factors in understanding sexuality.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 3:21pm | #
But until then, don't act like it's okay when you say all sorts of bad shit should happen to this guy even though he hasn't been convicted of anything.Said this before.....
So long as Smack doesn't shove a red hot poker up McClellan's ass, she's also free to say whatever she'd like to.
That's actually a much more pleasant visual than what comes to mind when Jack says he doesn't like to fuck babies because he can't deal with shitty diapers.
So if it's effectively become illegal to write "I would very much like to do this illegal action, and here's how I'd do it if it were legal," who will be prosecuted next? Jacob Sullum's written quite a bit in favor of illegal activities like drug use. (Think of the children ZOMFG!!) Granted, right now it sounds ridiculous to think the McClellan precedent will ever be used against those who write about other illegal activities. But once upon a time, it sounded just as ridiculous to think smoking bans would one day lead to bans on certain types of junk food. Yet, behold modern America!
smacky | August 28, 2007, 3:35pm | #
So if it's effectively become illegal to write "I would very much like to do this illegal action, and here's how I'd do it if it were legal," who will be prosecuted next? Jacob Sullum's written quite a bit in favor of illegal activities like drug use. (Think of the children ZOMFG!!) Granted, right now it sounds ridiculous to think the McClellan precedent will ever be used against those who write about other illegal activities. But once upon a time, it sounded just as ridiculous to think smoking bans would one day lead to bans on certain types of junk food. Yet, behold modern America!Jennifer,
Yeah, but all of those other examples that you gave are arguably civil liberties (e.g. doing drugs, smoking, junk food) and should not be illegal in the first place. I suppose some people might argue that having sex with children is a civil liberty, but I haven't seen anyone here give a convincing argument for it, and as far as I'm concerned, it is a wrongful imposition and an infringement on children's freedom.
I think if anyone is being the chicken little here, it is the person who insists that actually protecting children from predators is going to snowball into a law banning free speech.
The Wine Commonsewer | August 28, 2007, 3:49pm | #
My point is that Smacky's speech, that she has been roundly condemned for, is no different than Jack's speech. A point that seems lost on some folks.smacky | August 28, 2007, 3:58pm | #
TWC,Well, and I am fully conscious of the irony of it, and am saying it expressly to prove that point, and not because I enjoy harassing other people the way that McClellan apparently does. So the similarity ends there.
I'm sure the community would rather not have had to formulate a means of dealing with this nuisance, but in some ways it is probably best for the community that he outed himself. In other ways, it could be bad, but I'd rather not speculate about that.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 4:01pm | #
TWC,Others' points are that smacky condemns this guy for the same thing she is doing...exercising speech...which in turn leads others to condemn what she is doing. It's a vicious cycle and a point that seems lost on you, as well :)
Reviewing some of the comments on this thread, it occurred to me that Cathy Young could write an article about this issue.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 4:07pm | #
jimmydageek,Yeah, but I'm not exercising my speech parked outside of McClellan's house with a loaded gun and a ball gag in the car. That point seems to be repeatedly lost on you. Anyway, I never advocated such things.
His nasty statements on talk shows and in interviews aren't the issue. Accruing evidence against him is merely another good tactic at fighting back. If that means videotaping him in his car while it's parked on public property, well then.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Yeah, but I'm not exercising my speech parked outside of McClellan's house with a loaded gun and a ball gag in the car. That point seems to be repeatedly lost on you. Anyway, I never advocated such things.A loaded gun in the vehicle would be illegal, I believe. However, having a gun and a ball gag while parked near his house would be perfectly fine. That's the point that gets lost on you. Thanks for playing.
As far as video taping the guy in public, nothing wrong with that either.
smacky | August 28, 2007, 4:23pm | #
jimmy,No, I'm sorry, no points have slipped past my comprehension. I have all of the bases covered. I think we have just begun the pissing match for who gets the last post on this thread, is all.
jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 4:25pm | #
Even if you were advocating the death or torture of this guy, there should be nothing wrong with that. However, when somebody takes action in response to your advocacy...then you become responsible to an extent and then you should be held accountable. Same in this guy's case. He's done nothing wrong. However, if by providing addresses and pictures of kids, it leads to some other pedophile committing a crime against the same kids, then McClellan should be held accountable as well.jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 4:26pm | #
When does the comment box disappear? :)jimmydageek | August 28, 2007, 4:30pm | #
Even if you were advocating the death or torture of this guy, there should be nothing wrong with that...Sorry, I must add that there should be nothing wrong with that legally. "Morally" is another matter.