Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Moderator
retired moderator
Original Poster
#1 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 5:55 AM
Default Jack McClellan (pedophile) and His Website
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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? [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?

*Source - MSNBC.com
JackMcClellan.com

Formerly known as boolPropped
Advertisement
Forum Resident
#2 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:05 AM
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.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Field Researcher
#3 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:05 AM
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.
#4 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:06 AM
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.
Moderator
retired moderator
Original Poster
#5 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:18 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Amish Nick
boolPropped have you ever heard of "NAMBLA"?

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

Formerly known as boolPropped
Forum Resident
#6 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
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.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Field Researcher
#7 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:39 AM
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.
#8 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:51 AM
I'm surprised posting something like that on the internet is legal! 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?
Forum Resident
#9 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:58 AM
Quote: Originally posted by pieridae
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.

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

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Moderator
retired moderator
Original Poster
#10 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 6:59 AM
You would think, though, that if the pictures were associated with incriminating text, there would be something more law enforcement could do...

Formerly known as boolPropped
Forum Resident
#11 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 7:06 AM
Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
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.

Quote: Originally posted by ACLU
"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.

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Instructor
#12 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 10:29 AM
Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
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....
#13 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 11:09 AM
firstly, who ever lived near Jack McClellan , 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 or maybe this

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.
Mad Poster
#14 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 11:22 AM
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.
Forum Resident
#15 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 4:19 PM
**** IE! had this almost done typing when it decided to **** out and make me retype it all again.

Quote: Originally posted by nixie
firstly, who ever lived near Jack McClellan , 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.

Quote:
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 or maybe this
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;


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.




Quote:
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

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
#16 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 4:32 PM
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
Forum Resident
#17 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 8:32 PM
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!
Forum Resident
#18 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 8:53 PM
Quote: Originally posted by 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!
Are you talking about jackmcclellan.com? If so, that is a ANTI-Jack McClellan web site. Started to fight him, and other pedos

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Field Researcher
#19 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 8:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by 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!


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...
Moderator
retired moderator
Original Poster
#20 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 9:46 PM
Quote: Originally posted by 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.

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.

Quote: Originally posted by TingTong
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.

Formerly known as boolPropped
#21 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 10:10 PM
i cant believe that he was able to host such a site. its purely disgusting to hear what he did.
Lab Assistant
#22 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 10:31 PM
Some links to explain NAMBLA:

Main Site

Wiki wiki wiki

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 (You might've heard about them from Dateline NBC) (18+)
Scholar
#23 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 11:39 PM
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.
Mad Poster
#24 Old 5th Aug 2007 at 11:45 PM
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.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Mad Poster
#25 Old 6th Aug 2007 at 12:00 AM
Quote: Originally posted by boolPropped
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.
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top