I've written about Jack McClellan. He's an admitted pedophile who maintains a website about "girl love" that discusses watching -- but not touching -- little girls. McClellan has, as far as anyone can prove, never engaged in illegal behavior with a child. Now that is critical for what is to follow, for as disgusting as this guy is, he appears to have conformed his activities to within the restrictions of the laws. Indeed, the police even admit as much.

But Capt. Joe Gutierrez, commanding officer of the Special Victims Bureau of the L.A. County Sheriff's Office, told FOX News that complaints against McClellan were evaluated and he has not committed any crimes.

"Several citizens contacted us about his Web site," Gutierrez said. "There's no current criminal investigation."

Now a group of parents have gotten a judge to issue a restraining order against Jack McClellan -- one that, among other things, forbids him from being in a public place were there are likely to be children, forbids him to come within 10 feet of a child, and publishing material that is legal under California and federal law.

Indeed, noted conservative legal scholar Eugene Volokh (and blogger)finds this situation very troubling.

However, the breadth of the order raised some questions for 1st Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, who called it "more or less house arrest." Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said that restricting McClellan to 10 yards away from any child in California means "you can't go to the store, you can't walk down the street Â…. He can't go to court to challenge this. How can you be sure you can stay away from anyone 17 and younger?"

McClellan has no criminal record but he has spoken publicly about enjoying watching little girls. On his website — which is down — he had posted photographs he had taken of children and had rated venues for spotting little girls.

"They have an understandable worry this guy is going to do something bad," said Volokh. "But that's not enough. You need at least probable cause to believe some crime has been committed."

I happen to agree with that analysis. This order effectively strips McClellan of certain fundamental liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

After all, the following activities are, in fact, legal.

1) Being in a public place where there are children present.
2) Advocating a change in social or political mores, no matter how unpopular that advocacy.
3) Photographing individuals in public places where no expectation of privacy applies.
4) Making non-commercial use of such photographs if one holds the copyright to them.

Indeed, as this restraining order is formulated, McClellan is effectively barred from leaving his home, and probably the only public place he is permitted to be is a bar.

This places grave and serious restrictions on his First Amendment rights.

1) His ability to speak is implicated (all you have to do to require him to stop speaking is bring a kid into his presence).

2) His freedom of the press is implicated (look at the limits placed upon his legal words and activities when it comes to publishing his thoughts and beliefs).

3) His freedom of religion is implicated (his attendance at any house of worship is effectively barred by this injunction).

4) His right to peaceably assemble is implicated (virtually every public place — including courtrooms, legislative chambers and government offices — are effectively closed to him because of the likelihood of children being present).

5) His right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is likewise restricted (see my point above).

Now there is a hearing on August 24 regarding whether or not to make this order permanent. However, as I point out above, Jack McClellan appears to be prohibited by this order from attending because of the likelihood that there will be children present at the courthouse or along his path there. This also means that his due process rights under the US Constitution are abrogated by the restraining order as well.

Why am I defending the Constitutional rights of this sick excuse of a man? Because the reality is that whatever restrictions are placed upon him will also be used to limit some of us.

I've written harshly about illegal immigration and jihadi Islam. Could someone make the argument that my statements show that I constitute a threat to Hispanics, and therefore get me barred from any public place where there might be Hispanics or Muslims? Could they get my liberty to write and publish my thoughts and beliefs on this website restricted? Under this precedent, yes they could. Indeed, if so-called hate-crime laws currently under consideration are passed, it is quite likely that some judge will act on behalf of some liberal interest group's attorney and declare that the beliefs I've expressed are illegal under those laws and subject to criminal sanction. I therefore take threats to the First Amendment rights of ANY American very seriously -- even those who I believe to be scum.

You see, my rights -- and the rights of every American -- are subject to exactly the same limits as are placed upon Jack McClellan. It is the same principle that I apply when I support the rights of Kluxers, Commies, and Nazis to speak freely -- absent criminal activity, they have a right to espouse beliefs and engage in activities that I abhor. The same is true of McClellan -- though I despise him and what he believes even more than I do those other evil folks. My rights, your rights, and his rights are identical in their extent -- and their limits.

Interestingly enough, over at Fascist Fred's Echo Chamber, we've got a goose-stepper and his vigilante mob arguing for a good old-fashioned lynching just on the general principle that McClellan says things that they find repugnant based upon their faux-patriotic, pseudo-Christian sense of outrage. What they do not recognize is this -- their expressed desire to murder the man makes them no different than Jack McClellan himself. Indeed, Fascist Fred and his lynch mob are worse.

Vigilante justice can be as wrong as wrong can get, innocent men and women have died in the name of vigilante justice, and as with anything else, mistakes can and have been made, but in the case of a SELF PROFESSED pedofreak that has empowered his kind and encouraged them and guided them in their quest to molest children, NO form of vigilante justice is too strong, too violent or too out of line to administer against this scumÂ…

I hope the authorities in Fascist Fred's area are monitoring his blog, and are taking appropriate actions to limit Fascist Fred's Second Amendment rights in the same fashion he is willing to abolish McClellan's First Amendment rights. After all, Fascist Fred is clearly a much more immediate danger to society than McClellan -- McClellan professes that he has and will continue to follow societies laws, despite his perverse desires, while Fascist Fred has indicated his intent to murder those who think and speak contrary to what he believes is proper AND likely broken the law by attempting to incite McClellan's murder.

Now, what can decent people do about Jack McClellan? They can do is be informed as to who this sick freak is, monitor his movements and make damn sure that he does not have the opportunity to harm a child. They can urge local businesses to ban him from the premises, and urge his landlord to break his lease. They can insist that the local cops keep Jack McClellan under observation. They can insist upon his arrest and prosecution in the event of ANY illegal activity, whether it relates to a child or not. And they can press for laws that more severely penalize real child sex abuse (not two teenagers having sex, like in Georgia, but sick freaks like McClellan). All of those actions are proper -- but those that imperil the Constitutional freedoms of ALL Americans are not, nor are acts of cold-blooded, premeditated murder.

Posted by: Greg at 05:01 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1350 words, total size 9 kb.