Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Parents' Ire Grows at *********'s Blog

  1. #1
    Sana Chan
    Guest

    Parents' Ire Grows at *********'s Blog

    http://news.aol.com/story/_a/parents...28123009990001

    Parents' Ire Grows at *********'s Blog
    By JENNIFER STEINHAUER,The New York Times
    LOS ANGELES (July 28) -- The search for the self-described ********* in the large-brimmed black hat commences nearly every day here, with findings posted on chat rooms frequented by mothers.

    He was spotted at a fair in Santa Clarita. He recently emerged from the Social Security office on Olympic Boulevard. He tapped away on a computer at the library in Mar Vista. Warnings have gone out. Signs have been posted.

    And yet unlike convicted sex offenders, who are required to stay away from places that cater to children, in this case the police can do next to nothing, because this man, Jack McClellan, who has had Web sites detailing how and where he likes to troll for children, appears to be doing nothing illegal.

    But his mere presence in Los Angeles -- coupled with Mr. McClellan’s commitment to exhibitionistic blogging about his thoughts on little girls -- has set parents on edge. One group of mothers, whose members by and large have never met before, will soon band together in a coffee shop to hammer out plans to push lawmakers in Sacramento to legislate Mr. McClellan out of business.

    "Just the idea that this person could get away with what he was doing and no one could press charges has made me angry," said Jane Thompson, a stay-at-home mother in East Los Angeles who recently read Mr. McClellan's comments about a festival in her neighborhood in which he seemed to be describing her child.

    Ms. Thompson is part of a movement to make it illegal to post images of children of any type on Web sites with sexual content or themes. "It became what I call a minor obsession of mine for the next six weeks," she said, "to get to know his crowd and the things they talk about."

    Two months ago, Mr. McClellan said, he was more or less run out of Washington State, where he lived off and on with his parents, after the news media there and various Web sites drew attention to his activities, making him worry about his safety and that of his family. He had been posting nonsexual pictures of children on a Web site intended to promote the acceptance of pedophiles, and to direct other pedophiles to events and places where children tended to gather.

    So he moved to Los Angeles, where he was born, to try to live a Southern California version of his former life. The climate was one draw, said Mr. McClellan in an interview near this reporter's office last week. But also "there are so many world-class children's attractions here, Disneyland, festivals and whatnot."

    Mr. McClellan has refrained from posting pictures of children on his Web site, which was shut down by its host several weeks ago but which he intends to start again, he said, with a Dutch host. On the site, he has described fairs, festivals and other spots that he hits at least three days a week, all to the fury of parents.

    It is both his actions and inactions that vex law enforcement officials here, who, while suggesting that they keep an eye on Mr. McClellan when they can, say they have no legal recourse against him.

    "If you look at things he has posted, he clearly is a *********," said Lt. Thomas Sirkel, who works in the Special Victim' Unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

    "Has he acted on it? I can't say," Lieutenant Sirkel said. "But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one who has not."

    Mr. McClellan, who is 45, refers to himself as a *********, but says he has never actually sexually touched a child, simply "embraced them in a nonsexual way, mostly in Latin American countries." He says he has never been convicted of a sex crime, and law enforcement officials in Los Angeles say they know of no convictions.

    A check of available public records yielded no criminal history for Mr. McClellan, including under another name he said he used. Mr. McClellan, who said he was adopted, said he changed his name to that of his birth mother several years ago.

    Lieutenant Sirkel would not say whether his department had Mr. McClellan under surveillance.

    "Why should I tell him about our tactics?" Lieutenant Sirkel said. But he added: "I'd like to know where he is at, what he is doing and watch him awhile. I think he is possibly a dangerous man. In my opinion, he is a threat to children in this community, and people in the community are real concerned about him."

    Two Web-based groups, Peachhead, which caters largely to mothers on the West Side of Los Angeles, and Booby Brigade, its counterpart across town, have been abuzz with chatter about "Jack" sightings, and some parents have taken to posting photos of him in parks, downloaded from the Web.

    "This one really angered people," said Linda Perry, who runs Peachhead, referring to Mr. McClellan.

    Mr. McClellan has been somewhat elusive. He lives largely in his car, he said, although he says he occasionally rents rooms. Asked how he makes a living, he would say only that he lives off of "public assistance, the kind where you're not allowed to work."

    The parental reactions somewhat mirror those in the novel and film "Little Children," in which a community becomes enraged at the notion of a convicted sex offender living in their midst, and chase him down at every turn. Although Mr. McClellan is not similarly pursued, parents who recognize him at events often scream at him, he said, and he fears for his safety enough that he would not meet a reporter in a public place.

    Law enforcement officials have clearly taken notice -- one mother posted on PeachheadFamilies.com about her husband, a location scout for films, being asked to leave a park where he was using his camera. Mothers from Pasadena to Marina del Rey will soon gather to discuss possible legislative options, Ms. Thompson said.

    Theirs will most likely be a difficult road. While posting pictures of children in sexual situations is a felony, posting them fully clothed in everyday situations is not, even in the context of sexualizing them by proxy, so to speak, First Amendment scholars said. Further, while inciting others to commit crimes can be illegal, it is unclear whether giving people links to children's book fairs is criminal.

    "It is an interesting case," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor and First Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    Professor Volokh cited a federal statute that bars the posting of bomb-making information on the Web, and suggested that a similar statute banning information that helps people find children to molest could be enacted, perhaps. But simply providing information about where children gather was not likely to constitute such a crime, he said.

    In terms of children's images, he said: "The general rule is pictures of people in public are free for people to publish. Now if it is without permission and the person is a child and he suggests the children are sexual targets, you can imagine a court saying this is a new First Amendment exception. But it would be an uphill battle."

    So for now, then, many Angelenos will continue to track and record Mr. McClellan's every move. Ms. Perry of Peachhead noted that the city was full of convicted child molesters.

    "At least we know who he is and what he looks like," she said.


    He wants to promote the acceptance of pedophiles?! Then maybe he should go back to that Latin American country where he touched children "nonsexually". I some how doubt he's gonna win that battle here.


  2. #2
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Wasnt there a case a few years ago where someone was convicted for writing their 'thoughts' when they involved sexual fantasies about children, i think this was a private diary, shouldnt the much harder for the DA to go for the same kind of thing because of a blog thats available to everyone, its clearly obscene if he is writing about lurid sex acts with kids.

    Its also interesting that he says he's been to Latin America a lot, is that a destination for pedos these days? I never knew that, i always thought the Phillipines was :eek:

    Regards,

    Lee


  3. #3
    Pimp My Boyfriend Trixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    near Seattle, WA
    Posts
    60
    As detestable as it may be, it's pretty scary when people want to convict people of thought crimes.
    Promote solo guy site TrixiesHouseboy.com!
    WebWhoreBucks


  4. #4
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Trixie View Post
    As detestable as it may be, it's pretty scary when people want to convict people of thought crimes.
    Its not a thought crime though, its published obscenity.

    Regards,

    Lee


  5. #5
    throw fundamentalists to the lions chadknowslaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,149
    You might be thinking of a case in Pennsylvania where a woman was charged with federal obscenity violations. She has not been convicted, just charged.

    She wrote fictional stories about sexual abuse of children. No images, just words. None of the stories are real. Yet she is being charged with criminal obscenity for words alone. She operated a pay site, so nobody that did not want to read her words ever saw them.

    I do not believe that the written word is obscene.




    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Wasnt there a case a few years ago where someone was convicted for writing their 'thoughts' when they involved sexual fantasies about children, i think this was a private diary, shouldnt the much harder for the DA to go for the same kind of thing because of a blog thats available to everyone, its clearly obscene if he is writing about lurid sex acts with kids.

    Its also interesting that he says he's been to Latin America a lot, is that a destination for pedos these days? I never knew that, i always thought the Phillipines was :eek:

    Regards,

    Lee
    Chad Belville, Esq
    Phoenix, Arizona
    www.chadknowslaw.com
    Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!


  6. #6
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Quote Originally Posted by chadknowslaw View Post
    You might be thinking of a case in Pennsylvania where a woman was charged with federal obscenity violations. She has not been convicted, just charged.
    No this was before the Red Rose stuff happened.

    Some guy wrote in a private diary about sexual fantasies involving children and he arrested, charged and i beleive convicted to some kind of prison sentence.

    Regards,

    Lee


  7. #7
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Yeah, looks like guy got 5 years for simply 'writing' about sex with children...

    http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...diary+sentence

    Regards,

    Lee


  8. #8
    throw fundamentalists to the lions chadknowslaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,149
    He had a LOT more going on than just writing I believe--


    "Photos found in the account helped police trace the victims, and a search of their house revealed a CD with 588 images of child pornography, and an electronic diary."
    Chad Belville, Esq
    Phoenix, Arizona
    www.chadknowslaw.com
    Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!


  9. #9
    throw fundamentalists to the lions chadknowslaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,149
    Or maybe it was this guy--


    "He kept one of the kidnapped boys on a leash.

    He made both of his victims call him “master” for days while he repeatedly raped and taunted them"
    Chad Belville, Esq
    Phoenix, Arizona
    www.chadknowslaw.com
    Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!


  10. #10
    throw fundamentalists to the lions chadknowslaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,149
    The link you provided had Google results for a number of different offenders. The ones I followed revealed more than just writings. The two excerpts I posted were from different convictions.

    An adult how sexually abuses a child is a very very dangerous person, and usually at great risk to re-offend. Red Rose should not be put in the same category as those monsters.
    Chad Belville, Esq
    Phoenix, Arizona
    www.chadknowslaw.com
    Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!


  11. #11
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Brian Dalton was the guy i was thinking of in Ohio, he got 10yrs for simply writing about ficticious sex with children...

    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...al_raises.html

    Regards,

    Lee


  12. #12
    Pimp My Boyfriend Trixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    near Seattle, WA
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    Its not a thought crime though, its published obscenity.

    Regards,

    Lee
    The way I see it, obscenity is just a term used to criminalize unsavory speech when there is no actual victim.
    Promote solo guy site TrixiesHouseboy.com!
    WebWhoreBucks


  13. #13
    throw fundamentalists to the lions chadknowslaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,149
    Icky.



    That was a few years ago, and he entered a plea, he was not found gulity. Plus it says he wanted to withdraw his plea, so he may have done that and gone to trial. I would be interested to find out how this case turned out in the end.

    If he plead guilty as opposed to being _found_ guilty he could not challenge his conviction on 1st Amendment grounds. He entered his plea in 2001 and since then the US Supreme Court has thrown out other laws that criminalize possession of porn that would appear to be children but does not contain any images of real children. I think if he had been found guilty, he could have challenged his conviction and won, since the Supremes believe [at least prior to Roberts/Alito] that for something to be child porn, it has to have images of persons under 18 at the time the images were taken.

    But appeals take money, and unfortunately sometimes it costs so much to prove a point defendants take a plea instead.
    Chad Belville, Esq
    Phoenix, Arizona
    www.chadknowslaw.com
    Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!


  14. #14
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Trixie View Post
    The way I see it, obscenity is just a term used to criminalize unsavory speech when there is no actual victim.
    No, thats the definition that the Bush Administration attaches to it.

    There is a clear cut line between obscene and non-obscene material in my opinion and the opinion of many communities around the country.

    Regards,

    Lee


  15. #15
    throw fundamentalists to the lions chadknowslaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    2,149
    If obscenity has multiple definitions, that is bad. Something that is not obscene in one community could be found obscene in another, and if you are posting material on the web which definition should you follow? Or should there be a "community standard" for the web community?

    This is the biggest reason why I think "obscenity" should not be illegal i.e. you go to PRISON if you violate it.

    Publishing or possessing or viewing child pornography is fairly easy to define and it is behavior that should be punished. Putting up images that are "acceptable" in New York City but can send you to prison in Pennsylvania seems absurd to me.

    I draw the line at adults involved in consensual activities viewed by adults that want to view such images = OK. No consent [animals cannot consent] or children = jail.

    BTW, there is a First Amendment right to _possess_ obscenity. The violation of obscenity laws turns on _publication_ of it. Which leads to further absurdity -- I have the right to possess obscene material in the US but someone else can go to jail for giving it [or selling it] to me.

    Can I just be appointed President for 4 years? I don't want to run, and just for 4 years.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lee View Post
    No, thats the definition that the Bush Administration attaches to it.

    There is a clear cut line between obscene and non-obscene material in my opinion and the opinion of many communities around the country.

    Regards,

    Lee
    Chad Belville, Esq
    Phoenix, Arizona
    www.chadknowslaw.com
    Keeping you out of trouble is easier than getting you out of trouble!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •