Jack McClellan (pedophile) and His Website

[beeps]

Jack McClellan was recently interviewed on MSNBC regarding a website he created, owns and runs. This self-declared pedophile (who states that he is only attracted to young girls but has never acted on his attraction) explained what his website was like, why he created it and how it isnt unlawful.

For years, McClellan maintained a Web site on which he posted photos he took of children in public places. He also discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls, or "LGs," congregate.
Yes, folks you read that right. This pedophile created a website with young girls' information, pictures and play-schedule and put it out there for countless fellow pedophiles to take notes.

McClellan's server took his Web site down a month ago, and he said Friday he is not sure whether he'll try to put it back up.
Thank goodness for that, and thank goodness that McClellan was just court-ordered to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under the age of 18 in California.

As horrendous and disgusting all of this is, I do have a central question: Is having a website like this unlawful? not[/U] against the law to create a website of this nature.] So what steps do we need to take to make this type of behavior illegal? What are some of the implications of trying to make this unlawful in the internet world? What will stronger censorship do to other websites?

[I]*Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20113265/) - MSNBC.com
JackMcClellan.com (http://jackmcclellan.com/)

[Amish Nick_SC]

boolPropped have you ever heard of "NAMBLA"? If not consider your self fortunate. What this guy is doing is disgusting, but unfortunately it is protected as free speech. To talk about it is legal, it is only illegal to act upon it. The ACLU has gone to court defending numerous times groups and people like this.

If you never heard of NAMBLA, their stated goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships.

[Blake_SC]

I also recall another website stating information about 'snitches' or people who turn others in for money, less jailtime etc.. It would state where they lived phone number, etc. and most of the 'snitches' would get harassed, beaten, etc (again). All because the website creator was turned in by a snitch.

Obviously it should be illegal, but there is no way to regulate it. It is the WORLD wide web. Unless the operator was in the states, we would have no way to punish him/her. I.E. A man in England does the same thing, people in Wyoming are disgusted, their laws (hypothetically) would say its wrong, but if England's laws don't, then it doesn't really have any effect. Unless all the countries in the world co-operate and form a series of laws against this, then it won't be able to be stopped.

[nostalgicpaty]

i think this is unlawfull. i am an aunt i know im young 15, but i am very protective of my niece. and i hate the fact that some man is staking out children in MY state. and that scares me what if my niece was one of the girls staked out. this scares me so much. it makes me sick to my stomach that someone was even out there doing this. let alone in the state i live in. they should of sentanced this man to a harsher penalty. i think they should not alow anything like this to happen to anyone. but there is a thought if it becomes illegal to do this on the internet. are famous people included? because they are constanly stalked.so how can you draw the line.

[beeps]

boolPropped have you ever heard of "NAMBLA"?
No, I havent. Is it something having to do with the Freedom of Speech Laws?

[Amish Nick_SC]

No, I havent. Is it something having to do with the Freedom of Speech Laws?
No, they are an org. that wants to legalize sex between very young boys, and full grown men.

[pieridae]

Oh, that is just wrong.


EDIT: I guess that isn't much of a debate, is it?

As for Jack, he seriously needs to wake up and smell the...doodoo he's spreading. How can this not be illegal? I'm amazed. It's just wrong. How is it not violating those little girls right to privacy? And protecting them from other predators out there? I just...don't get it.

[Stormy_SC]

I'm surprised posting something like that on the internet is legal! :wtf: This government is suppose to be so hard up on cracking down on these pedophile, but then turn around and allow something like this to happen? Where are these girls' mothers? Are they taking a stand and trying to do something to stop this?

[Amish Nick_SC]

I'm amazed. It's just wrong. How is it not violating those little girls right to privacy?Because the pictures were taken in public, parks and the like. Places that are not protected under the law.

From another article about him.

Since it is not illegal to take pictures of people in public, including children, law enforcement officials admit their hands are tied.

[beeps]

You would think, though, that if the pictures were associated with incriminating text, there would be something more law enforcement could do...

[Amish Nick_SC]

You would think, though, that if the pictures were associated with incriminating text, there would be something more law enforcement could do...
One would think that, and it should be that way, but it is not. As I have said, the ACLU has gone to the courts and defended sucsessfully sickos like this.

A statement from the ACLU concerning NAMBLA similar to this guy and what he writes.

"Under the First Amendment, there are no illegal ideas. Those who commit illegal acts can be punished for wrongful conduct, but the expression of even offensive ideas is protected by our Constitution,"


They have fought and won with this argument.

[MissTech]

No, I havent. Is it something having to do with the Freedom of Speech Laws?

BP- NAMBLA= North American Man Boy Love Association
Bunch of sickies....

[nixie_SC]

firstly, who ever lived near Jack McClellan (http://santamonicapd.org/Bulletins/PublicBulletin-07-004.htm) , be careful when you are out with your child.

I don't think he can maintain a website like that first and obviously, it promotes pedophilia. secondly it violates the "Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals" see this (http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html) or maybe this (http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Licensing_Images/publicity.html)

He cannot take pictures of individual without their conscent and he also cannot published said pictures without the individual's conscent and worse he already did all those and publish them on a website.

I think he needs to be in a mental hospital, this person clearly need to be put away.

[crocobaura]

I think there's nothing wrong with him taking pics and all, if they are for his own personal use and he hasn't bothered the girls in any way. For all we know the girls are not even aware of his existance and frankly we can't convict someone for having feelings and thoughts about someone else. However, I think that he is seriously endangering the girls' by putting their pictures and very private information such as names, play schedules, places they hang-out at, or even home address, on his internet website. I mean, that is private information that not even grown-ups share easily over the internet, let alone a kid.

[Amish Nick_SC]

**** IE! had this almost done typing when it decided to **** out and make me retype it all again.

firstly, who ever lived near Jack McClellan (http://santamonicapd.org/Bulletins/PublicBulletin-07-004.htm) , be careful when you are out with your child.
Yes they should keep an eye on their children. But not only those who live near this creep. He is open about his sickness, others are not.

I don't think he can maintain a website like that first and obviously, it promotes pedophilia. secondly it violates the "Publicity and Privacy Rights of Individuals" see this (http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html) or maybe this (http://www.chin.gc.ca/English/Intellectual_Property/Licensing_Images/publicity.html) Some site hosts are more liberal in what they allow. I've seen game sites with young children on it, and open porn pictures that can be seen by any one and every one and the host site not care. Sad but true. His site was located on a host site located over seas, my guess is because of the country it was located in. Some countries have very lax-ed laws regarding children.

About your links, you need to take into consideration what it says in them, from your first link;


You may need permission to photograph people due to state laws giving individuals privacy and publicity rights.

Most states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of privacy. (...)

Almost half the states in the US recognize that individuals have a right of publicity.

and from the second link which covers Canadian laws, but has a small bit on US law.

The law protecting publicity and privacy rights of individuals is more highly developed in some jurisdictions than others.

He use to live in Washington state until he was driven out due to his web site years ago. Yep he has operated this site for a long time. He now lives in Los Angeles, my guess he chose to move there because of more lax-ed laws regrading what he is doing. Laws very from state to state, even city to city.




I think he needs to be in a mental hospital, this person clearly need to be put away.Too nice, think more painful.

Here is an interview from Fox of him, watch and listen to his sickness

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3dDk84IyOsc

[Lina_SC]

Um.... This is horrible. I remember a few years ago there was(there is a mirror now, but when I google it, it doesn't come up) which had green font on a black background. No pictures, but it gave pedophiles recommendations about HOW to have sex with an eight year old if they absolutely had to. I remember a few people tried to sabotage it and succeeded. That website was sick... horrible, and hosted in western Europe.
Right, there is another website that advocates that apparently children can think for themselves completely without knowing about sex yet and they cannot be coerced because sex feels good, even for little children. My point is that when children are molested they won't really know it's wrong and if it feels good, why not keep doing it? They're children for a reason, after all. (Thats why so many victims of abuse feel so guilty) Here's what this website says:
"Realize that pedophiles LOVE children. They do NOT advocate the use of force or coercion (beyond encouragement) on kids to have sex with them! Sex is not harmful for children or adults, provided it is done honestly, lovingly, and with good intentions and consent. It is not something kids should be "protected" from, like a fast moving car. It is the guilt trip of society that causes harm to perfectly good relationships. This must be changed-not the behavior of pedophiles or the children they love and care for. Pedophiles believe in "empowerment" of young people. By this, they mean that children OWN themselves, NOT adults. A pedophile realizes that a child may say "no" to sex, and that same child can say "yes" to it!"
It's absolutely disgusting.
Right, here's the URL if you want to hack them or anything http://youfoundme.org/artical1.html

[TingTong]

Why is that link even on this site? This site is for 13 + yr olds and its not appropriate! Can someone lock this thread? Oh and btw i think hes a sick man!

[Amish Nick_SC]

Why is that link even on this site? This site is for 13 + yr olds and its not appropriate! Can someone lock this thread? Oh and btw i think hes a sick man!Are you talking about jackmcclellan.com? If so, that is a ANTI-Jack McClellan web site. Started to fight him, and other pedos

[mokado]

Why is that link even on this site? This site is for 13 + yr olds and its not appropriate! Can someone lock this thread? Oh and btw i think hes a sick man!

There's no problem with arguing how sick is that guy, and how many years of prison he deserves.

I haven't seen the site, but, from the comments I see here, there isn't any explicit content. I just wonder how is it still On-line...

[beeps]

I think there's nothing wrong with him taking pics and all, if they are for his own personal use and he hasn't bothered the girls in any way.
You dont find anything wrong with this?! Im telling you, I would be horrified if I knew some creep was taking pictures of my daughter and using them for whatever type of sick and perverted ministrations he indulges in within the walls of his own home. Who cares if he hasnt harmed these young girls physically, but he is crossing a line (maybe not a legal line - but a line nevertheless) and completely disrespecting both the girls he takes pictures of and the parents of those girls.

Why is that link even on this site? This site is for 13 + yr olds and its not appropriate!
Yes, the website is an anti-Jack site. His website (with all the pictures and information about the young girls) is not currently active as his hosting service pulled it off the net.

[nostalgicpaty]

i cant believe that he was able to host such a site. its purely disgusting to hear what he did.

[LadyJade6480]

Some links to explain NAMBLA:

Main Site (http://www.nambla.org/)

Wiki wiki wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA)

Ugh. And technically speaking, The issue with Jack(ass) can go either way-- he's pulling the "freedom of speech" card, but his "speaking" is about something that is illegal--pedophilia.

A site that combats perverts, and would-be perverts (http://www.perverted-justice.com/) (You might've heard about them from Dateline NBC) (18+)

[TRIriana]

This is just completely disgusting, and that peple would actually turn around and say something like this is allowed...it's mindblowing. People only have this screwballs say-so that he has never acted on anything or yet. I hope this guy is monitored. It should be illegal - I know if I had a kid, and I found out that some man or woman had been taking picture of him or her in secret and then posting them on the Internet, I'd be disturbed, disgusted and donwright furious. I sure as hell wouldn't accept that it's legal. There are words for people like that, and they can't be uttered on a forum.

[Rabid]

Disgusting. You would think that the government could arrest him for invading the girls' privacy by posting confidential information about them, but obviously they haven't and/or they don't have the legal ground to do so. This should be illegal, but how is the question. It's a delicate situation and any move the government makes could easily backfire... I'd like to see what steps law officials are taking to try and prevent/stop this kind of crime. It's repulsive. Does anyone now if McClellan is a registered sex offender? I don't know if it's legal to register him since he hasn't committed any offenses yet (that I know of), but he definitely should be on the list. This seems kind of like sex trafficking to me... just in an Internet-prioritized way.

[crocobaura]

You dont find anything wrong with this?! Im telling you, I would be horrified if I knew some creep was taking pictures of my daughter and using them for whatever type of sick and perverted ministrations he indulges in within the walls of his own home. Who cares if he hasnt harmed these young girls physically, but he is crossing a line (maybe not a legal line - but a line nevertheless) and completely disrespecting both the girls he takes pictures of and the parents of those girls.


When I wrote that, I had in mind the fact that there are people who just love to take pics of children, sometimes they ask for parent's permission, sometimes they don't. Some may hang those pics up their walls without any sexual thoughts whatsoever, or make a calendar with instances of kids playing. Or like when someone likes to go in the park to watch kids playing. There's nothing sexual about it, women do this, and sometimes men too. You can't report a person to the police just because he or she's sitting on the opposite bench from you and your kid in a public park. Whatever thoughts or intentions you think the person may have is irrelevant, unless he acts upon them or gives you valid reasons to be concerned about your kids safety.
So, going back to the topic at hand, and considering the info we have about this guy, he may probably never sexually assault a kid himself, but he is putting those kids at risk by making them easy prey for other people and this is what should be prevented. Whatever self-loving activity he may have with pics of fully clothed kids from the park, or even adults for that matter, in the confines of his home, is something that the government just cannot predict nor regulate. True, the details might give you shivers, but the details of peoples sex life is always bound to give shivers to one or another.

[Calalily]

As horrendous and disgusting all of this is, I do have a central question: Is having a website like this unlawful? [In the interview on MSNBC, a California lawmaker stated that it indeed was not against the law to create a website of this nature.] So what steps do we need to take to make this type of behavior illegal? What are some of the implications of trying to make this unlawful in the internet world? What will stronger censorship do to other websites?

I would wonder how those Americans feel concerning the right to free speech. Mostly here in the debate room, the American Constitution and the rights for Americans are lauded. So why should free speech be limited by "what the majority approves of" - doesn't that ruin the rights to free speech totally?

[McGee]

I watched the show last night on MSNBC. Jack stated that he didn't believe he was dangerous... but his website attracts other pediphiles who DO actually act upon their thinking, and try to get physical. His website is a map to those peds, to find where the little girls are (since he states the locations of the LGS). Ugh, i was so upset last night. I know its totally legal but, i wouldn't be able to live near his area with kids.

[Stormy_SC]

They should really change that! I'm still having a hard time understanding how they can just let this thing go, whether he's acting on his actions or not!

[Haylifer]

I'm pretty sure there should be a law that says people are not allowed to upload photographs of other people without permission from the person photographed. Of course, that might be problematic for looking up photos of celebrities and such.. but still. Isn't it a breach of some personal data act? And to encourage other pedophiles to get physical is completely wrong and is as bad as doing so himself, seeing as he actually is putting his pedophillia into action rather than trying to control it.

Should pedophiles should be punished just for being attracted to children? I know of a few cases of self-confessed pedophiles who know they're attracted to youngsters but they know not to allow themselves around kids. Should people be punished for something they have no control over i.e. their sexual preference? And what about in other cultures where children are married and sometimes even mothers themselves at the ages of 12 and 13?

[LadyJade6480]

I would wonder how those Americans feel concerning the right to free speech. Mostly here in the debate room, the American Constitution and the rights for Americans are lauded. So why should free speech be limited by "what the majority approves of" - doesn't that ruin the rights to free speech totally?

It's not the whole "free speech" thing, it's the fact that his "speech" (ie, website detailing how to find and be near little girls) can be considered harmful, in the fact that other "dangerous" (ha.) pedophiles can utilize the site to act on their pedophilia.

[ateKna]

When I think about it, sometimes I will be walking down the sidewalk and there are people that have tried to take pictures of me before. Also in clubs people take pictures of whoever they want, which isn't a bad as being on the street, but still... By no means am I a child or anything, but still sometimes people with cameras can make you feel uncomfortable if they are pointing the camera at you without your permission. I can only imagine how a mother must feel if she caught someone taking a photo of her child. The right to free speech law is rather vague and general, so the government has ways around it by making specific allowances for situations like this. When it was first envisioned, the first amemendment was meant to provide people with an outlet to express their creative and diplomatic views without fear of oppression. Most people would agree that to extend it into the territory of protecting child prornography is a perversion of justice. Already media of this nature, which is overtly sexual, is prohibited. Hopefully, texts and directions which are explicit or even remotely suggestive towards commiting a crime against children will be punishable by the law as well.

[Modestgurl88]

I hate sites like that but it's protected under freedom of speech in our country sadly.Freedom of speech is complicated ,that's why it's hard for countries to maintain true freedom of speech.That doesn't mean you can't punish people for actions but you just can't ban them from saying anything.If there was a way to punish specific sites like this then I would support it without a doubt.The reason it hasn't happened is because of the language/wording it has to be made in.You can't just put down any websites with sexual content are banned.From what I have read it is punishable when they publish real photos on the website cause they have committed a crime and there's the proof. I think a lot of them wouldn't exist if pedophiles who commit crimes were punished more.A lot of them just get 8 years,I'm thinking life and no freedoms that some prisons have such as computers and watching tv.