Have you heard about Jack McClellan? He admits to going to public events to take pictures of young girls. He posts the pictures on his website. McClellan has never been convicted of a sex crime, and police say they have had no legal grounds on which to shut down any of his Web sites because the content and photos posted on them haven't been pornographic.
“My primary physical and emotional attraction is to pre-pubescent girls,”
“I guess the main thing is I just think they’re cute, a lot cuter than women,” he said then. “I admit there is kind of an erotic arousal there.”
"I really think a lot of this pedophilia hysteria is overblown. I think there are a lot of people like me,” “They have the attraction but they're not going to do anything physical because of the laws. It just makes me happy to attend these events."
In another interview, he said, "I got to be honest with you — if it was legal and if it was a completely consensual thing, I could see myself taking it all the way to a sexual" level.
Californians are all up in arms about this and want to pass a law. I heard a radio commentator say that the law should forbid anyone to take a picture of a child in public without the consent of the parent. In the meantime, a judge has issued a temporary restraining order against McClellan which states that he cannot come within 10 yards of anyone under the age of 18 in the state of California.
Now, what do you think? Does he have the right to take pictures of young girls in public places?
75 comments:
Im sure you all think he should be able to take the pictures, because you seem to think EVERYONE should be able to do anything and everything, but Im all for protecting innocent children and we live in a very sinful world that most anything goes now. I say NO he should leave the little children alone. He hasnt anything in mind that would benefit one of my precious grandchildren!!!
"Does he have the right to take pictures of young girls in public places?"
He does have the right...however, if I saw him taking pictures of Violet to use for his little fantasies, I'd kick his ass. And I think I'd have the right to do THAT, too.
Of course, he has the right to take pictures of anyone who is in public. If they don't want their picture taken, they had better not be in public. It is just another example of public overreaction. Now they want to make ANOTHER law and take one more of our freedoms away. Don't forget, this means you and I won't be able to take pictures either. Don't you see how our freedoms are being taken away on an almost daily basis? We start to accept these idiotic laws because we are not THINKING. Pretty soon, we will have no rights at all. Every law that is written to take away someone’s rights, also takes away our rights. This is a man who has not broken a law, yet we are all ready to jump on him and take away his rights. He not only has the right to take pictures of anyone he wants he also has the right to use them for his personal pleasure. Yes, that is sick and he is weird, but the last I heard, it wasn’t against the law to be weird, at least yet. Rights belong to everyone, even the weird. And Neisha, no you wouldn’t have the right to kick his ass. That is just emotion talking because you love Violet and want to protect her. I understand that too and I would feel the same way. But if you kicked his ass, you would be violating HIS rights, not the other way around.
I'm for protecting innocent children too, VERY much so!!! But how are Violets rights being infringed upon by some lawful citizen taking her picture? I am for protecting the rights of ALL of us, even his.
I said, "I think" I'd have the right to kick his ass. I "know" I wouldn't have the right to really do it (but, I'd do it anyway).
Gotcha.
Neisha, I was thinking the same thing. The right? Maybe. But we'd take care of him ourselves.
Exactly.
Robert said:
I don't care about this guys rights. Poeople like this have NO rights. Shoot his ass and be done with it!
Right on Robert..
Momma said, maybe she doesn't want her picture taken when she's in public. She has just as much a right not to have her picture taken, as he does to take the picture. I actually think that sort of a good point. What about that?
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
Neisha, I don't agree with you that Momma has a right for her picture not to be taken. If you will notice on this blog, I have pictures of Violet with other people in the background because they just happened to be there (for instance, at the fair). If you are out in public, you may just get your picture taken, like it or not.
One cannot demand their picture not be taken, anymore than they can demand, someone not look at them. If you are out in public, it is fair game.
I see, I see...
Momma's brainwashing me! jk
Old Hank has been a photo journalist most of his life, I have known good and bad photographers. The
really bad guys can go from photographing lovely models to shooting obscene sluts. They are always available somewhere. When it comes to children, pArents should always be careful how the kids are dressed and watch them at all timesin public.
If a type of pediphile gets a charge from kid pictures, a 10 yard (30-foot) restraining order from a court will only keep 'em from from touching someone. Otherwise the dude can wallpaper his house with pretty faces. There was a time when movie-goers could not get enough
personal affection just watching Shirley Temple films, but she was tightly guarded at all times in public.
Certainly, the reason for enjoying so many photos of Violet Burke is our interest in watching her mind and her self-confidence develop.
Hank: You raise some VERY GOOD points: Parents should always be careful how the kids are dressed and to watch them in public and that the restraining order does not necessarily stop someone from taking a picture. With a telephoto lens, you could take a picture of anyone from very long distances, right?
Very good points!
Neisha, you are funny! (brainwashing)
Robert: You say .... "People like this have NO rights." Who says? I thought ALL Americans had rights. This man cannot be denied his rights just because you don't like the way he thinks. Remember, this guy has not broken any laws.
Did you read Carol's eloquent comment above? If you take away HIS rights and not allow HIM to take pictures, then you will have to take away MY rights and YOUR rights and everyone else's rights to take pictures, too! Do you get it? Please tell me you do.
Robert said: That's correct! This guy has lost his rights as soon as he admitted he was a pervert. As I recall some innocent children like Samantha Runion and a few others. Did you forget that little girl already? ZERO TOLERANCE! You people who want to protect the rights of people like this are totally wrong. Instead of trying to defend these bad people you should be trying to protect the rights of these innocent children. You should be ashamed of yourselves. It’s not your freedom we’re talking about. No one has the right to be a child molester! Who's kidding who here? This guy should be run out of the USA right now as well as all the rest of these type of people. This is outrageous!
OK, let me jump in here...
So, the guy likes little girls, and admits it. What about the guys who like younger women? Nothing wrong with that? What if a guy likes women who are mentally retazrded? Cana't you just have abnormal preferences without being a criminal? What if you don't act on your preferences, isn't it still okay to have them?
There is ONE thing correct in your statement Bob. You said “no one has the right to be a child molester”. Of course, no one has the right to be a child molester, but you say that as though Jack McClellan IS a child molester and as far as I know, that is not the case. I’d be the first person to condemn someone who molested a child.
But speaking of SHAME, you should be ashamed for condemning someone before a crime has been committed and you should be ashamed for your swift condemnation and stripping away someone’s rights, even before they have been accused.
Government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout “fire” in a crowded theater and government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot you. Government is there to assure that the full force of the law can be brought against me if I use that right in a manner that threatens the rights of others. It does not have the authority to deny me those very rights for fear I might misuse them.
Robert Said: I have the right to say what I want. If you guys don't like it too bad!
Of course, you have the right to say what you want. Did someone say otherwise? Why are you being so defensive?
The guy taking the pictures has a right to say what HE wants, too...
Perversion isn't against the law...if it were I'd be in prison.
Tell us more, Neisha
Bob, you sure do have the right to say what you want. That is a freedom you share with Jack McClellan and is protected under the First Amendment, because the main principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.
that guy is a freak and i think that we should be more concerned about the media promoting his views to the public....now he has let everyone know it is OK to be a PERVERT...
what next a movie, a book deal.
It IS okay to be a pervert. You just don't agree with it, but as long as someone does not commit a crime, it IS okay to be a pervert. Just like it is okay to want to kill someone, but not do it. It's okay to want to steal something, but not do it.
Robert Said: This is more serious than you all make it out to be. To begin with these petafiles kill young children. It appears that there is no cure for their sickness. The courts in California have recognized this and the Judge took action as he should have. This person in question has admitted publicly that he is a petafile and has been taking pictures of young children in public places like the Orange County Fair on or about the same time that Violet and Lynette were at the fair. This is not okay with me or the Judge who issued a restraining order. This person was listing the best places to photograph young children on his web site. These type people can not be trusted in our society. There is a long list of these guys who have killed our young innocent children. David Westerfield comes to mind also. Did you forget the little girl in San Diego? Who’s rights are you trying to protect. As soon as this guy threw this in our faces and admitted to be a petafile he lost his rights and it appears the Judge in Cailfornia thinks the same way I do. This guy has no job, lives off the welfare system and has nothing better to do. We will change the law to protect innocent children that is clear. As I said this is outrageous!
So the guy could have taken a picture of Violet, blew it up. and now it's posted on his bedroom wall. Violet's not in his bedroom, just her image. Linnette was with her that day, protecting her from predators and perverts, so no harm done. No crime was committed.
Thank God you people arent in power to turn over children to this pervert!
Good points, Lisa (both of your comments)!
Bob, you say, "We will change the law to protect innocent children that is clear."
How will the laws be changed?
Lisa raised a very good question. What if you don't act on your preferences? Do you still lose your rights?
Robert Said: I think the Judge in California was able to issue a restraining order based on Megan's law. At least for now it doesn't look like any new laws are needed at least in Califirnia. The issue here is do we allow a admitted petafile to get close to children. The answer seems to be loud and clear, NO! If there was any legal issue with running this guy out of California I think the ACLU would have came to this guys rescue. I am really happy this Judge run this guy out of the State. It's about time someone had some balls!
And murders kill children, not pedophiles. A pedophile is simply a person who is sexually attracted to minors. However, a murderer can also be a pedophile.
I think we need to make the distinction here between someone who bears an attraction to children and someone who acts on that attraction. When my dog pees on the floor it upsets me and there has been times I want to hurt her for that, but I didn’t act on my feelings. Does that make me an animal abuser? I can think all of the horrible things I want, but the moment I act on them and harm or interfere with the rights of anyone else, that is when I become a criminal. Do we jail people who envy other people's possessions? Or only if they steal them? Every person, including Jack McClellan, has the right to think what ever he wants. The KKK hate blacks and they admit they want an all white society. But they have a right to have meetings, parades and they are even protected by the law. Being a pedophile, an adult having sexual thoughts about children, is not a crime, and a pedophile has just as many rights as you and I do, until they act on their impulses. So when someone asks “whose rights are you protecting?” The answer seems obvious, all of ours.
The guy came right out and admitted that little girls turn him on, so now we know not to let our kids around him. Isn't that enough? What else do we want? Isn't that the only information we need to protect our kids from him? He told us, we know, so we protect Violet from him, JUST LIKE WE PROTECT VIOLET FROM ALL THE OTHER PERVERTS OUT THERE WHO HAVEN'T TOLD US WHO THEY ARE.
There's hundreds of guys like McClellan out there. It seems like we'd want them to admit who they are, SO WE'D KNOW!
That's a good point, too, Lisa...people are always saying "you never know", etc. But, we DO know with him.
Right on, Neisha. I was wondering if anyone would get it, and you did. Yippykiyay.
Child abusers are around children all the time, just take a look inside the Catholic Church. Those who committed molestation against these children are not in prison, they are still in churches all over California bestowing their “blessings.” And the 63,000 convicted registered sex offenders in California have more rights than Jack McClellan has been given by this restraining order and he has committed no crime. Compare the public reaction to Jack McClellan versus the Catholic Priests.
He has NOT been run out of California and the judge has no authority to do so. The ruling will never stand up in court. The KKK do not have to stay away from blacks and the kleptomaniac does not have to stay out of stores, EVEN after conviction and Jack McClellan has not even been accused, let alone convicted. He is a law abiding citizen thus far.
That's a GREAT point about the Catholic priests!!! Where the hell is the public outrage there?!?!?!?! Now THAT makes me SICK! People are sooooooooooooo blind, deaf, and DUMB.
Yeah Neisha, really makes you think huh? If the public outcry was commensurate I could understand it, but people chose to turn a blind eye. And what about Michael Jackson? People made a bigger deal about him hanging that kid over the balcony than they did about his escapades of child abuse.
Jack McClellan does not like being in jail for a few hours, but he asked for it. Every person has a form of sexuality, but unforntunately some are out of whack!
This reminds me of 10 years ago when I was going upstairs in the rear apartment and noticed a yelllow pickup truck parked next to the fence I thought belonged to a friend. The closer I looked I noticed that the occupant was stimulating himself while looking for pre-schoolers entering the child care center. I immediately went back to the front house and dialed 911. Ten minutes later two squad cars came down the alley looking for a suspect. When one of the officers spotted me next door, he asked me if I had called the police. He told me the police had not seen the suspect do anything wrong, but that I could identify him as
the person I called about and file a citizens' arrest
against him. I did.
After this dude spent a couple of hours in the tank, a policeman called and told me the man had admitted he had a sex problem. I never heard from it again.
When I was a Little League official, there was only one serious molestation charge made against a coach who also happened to be a policeman for the City of Torrance. He lost bioth jobs.
Also, there are likely to be porportionately the same number of sex offender in every walk of life and every church denomination. It is now a subject that has caused the Catholic Church to carefully screen everyone and dwell on the business of discovering any sign of a sex preditor in their midst.
Uncle Hank
Oh PLEEEEZE!
Just kidding. Good points, Hank.
lololol
I'm glad the Catholic Church is screening everyone now, but I wonder why it took so long for them to start doing that.
AND why they protected the pedophiles! Even after victims accused them, the CHURCH tried to keep the victims quiet and protected those "fathers" for years and years and years! So what if they're screening them now?
Exactly!
The only reason I think the church is screening them NOW is because it knows if it doesn't take measures to at least look like it's doing something, it'll appear to the public that ist condones molestation.
In the eyes of the church, any behavior is acceptable as long it "brings lost sheep back into the fold". That's their justification, believe it or not. Go figure.
Robert Said: How you you know what the Catholic does? None of you who are making these comments are Catholic. How did you get you information?
It's not a secret. You don't have to be Catholic to know it.
I've read it many times from different sources. Malichi Martin wrote that in his book, The Keys of This Blood. And I read a book written by an ex-Jesuit, who said that.
Below is an excerpt from the book, Awful Disclosures, written by a nun, Maria Monk, who lived in 1800's. In the book she tells of her experiences at the nunnery.
"A priest, the nuns told me, is a holy man, and appointed to a holy office, and therefore what would be wicked in other men cannot be so in him. I was taught that priests are not like other men, but holy, and sent to instruct and save us, therefore, whatever they did was right."
But anyway....
But wait, I guess I didn't clarify what I meant when I said in the earlier comment, "In the eyes of the church, any behavior is acceptable as long it 'brings lost sheep back into the fold'".
I was referring to any behavior of a PRIEST.
Pryn: “what next a movie, a book deal. “
I wanted to interject about the story of a man who jumped off a cruise ship after being accused of molesting a 16 year old boy in the hot tub. After he jumped he spent 8 hours adrift at sea. Turns out the kid falsely admitted to the accusation after being drilled four hours with questioning at his school. The guy was eventually cleared of all criminal charges.
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/8/14/cruise_ship_jump_survivor.html
People want to assume the worst; they are quick to react, especially when something seems so justified. We have a lot of innocent people clogging up our legal systems. It ruins lives and allows the guilty to remain free.
Picture boy is a little wacky, if for no other reason he thinks it should be socially acceptable to look at children in a sexual manner which probably does make him dangerous. I think a normal person, accused of such a thing, would jump off a cruise ship rather than confront the bitter, seething contempt of their peers and the legal system.
And as far as the Catholic Church you gals are all very perceptive. They screen now because they got caught and it came to the public eye. Should have happened before it became a culture.
"Should have happened before it became a culture."
Yeah, "...became a culture." That IS such a good way of explaining it.
Great comment, Pryn. Oops, I mean easter bunny.
I don't think Pryn is "easter bunny." I think "easter bunny" was just quoting a line that Pryn said earlier.
OIC
I bet Drew is easter bunny. Hi easter bunny!
I think it's Henry. Hi Henry.
Hi Lisa!
Hey Drew!
Oh easter bunny. My concern is how desensitzed America is becoming with the medians influence of what to air. Already things that once appalled us now have become commonplace.
You would rather have someone censor your programming options?
Pryn, seems like the religious right could maybe use a little desensitizing. As long as Beer advertisers buy commercial time and Paris Hilton sells hamburgers we'll be subject to the barrage of sex in the media. I read that the average kid views 8000 murders on TV before they are out of elementary school. But most of those kids are still going to know murder is wrong. The question here is; does it make them more likely to commit a crime having been exposed to it?
However, I hope being a pedophiliac is never going to be socially acceptable. Some things are just set in stone.
Post a Comment