Pedophile discrimination?

[Jhony5]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291630,00.html

 

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.

 

McClellan tells other pedophiles where to go to be around children ? suggesting swimming pools, parks, elementary-school plays and libraries. When he was posting photos, they would be pictures he?d snapped when he was in places where children were gathered.

 

McClellan even rated his photo shoots ? from one-to-five hearts ? for fellow pedophiles, assigning one heart for places or events that failed to attract an abundance of little girls, to five hearts for photo shoots offering a plethora of young children.

 

He has said he is attracted to little girls between the ages of 3 and 11.

 

Jack McClellan interview;

http://www.mandjshow.com/videos/proud-pedophile/

 

OK, heres the gist of it. This guy had a website when he lived in the Tacoma Washington area. The website featured candid photos of young children, 3-10, and accompanied these photos with locations where the girls can be seen at. He moves to California. The local law enforcement manages to get a restraining order on him restricting his proximity to children. He has since been arrested once in violation of this order.

 

However our good friends at the ACLU, as well as many others, think this is a violation of his rights. They find this restraining order to be unconstitutional.

 

 

My take on it? I believe the restraining order is valid based on the grounds of child endangerment and harassment. Its not illegal to take pictures of people in public, no. However this man took pictures of very young children in public, and then posted where exactly that he saw them, on a pedophile website. He also rated the locations using hearts (1 heart 2 hearts etc).

 

Some say unconstitutional. I say its a perfect example of judicial innovation evolving laws to match technology.

[timesjoke]

I see nothing wrong with treating people the way they "need" to be treated.

 

In this case, we have a guy who calls himself a pedafile, what more reason do we need to keep him away from our children?

 

This is one very good example to show the decline of morals in our modern society. We have people fighting for the rights of scum like this and refuse to act in protecting the innocent.

 

Will the ACLU say they are sorry if this guy is able to attack a little girl with their assistance?

 

I think not.

[atlantic]

At the very least it is stalking, and child endangerment. I once caught a news photograher taking a picture of my son at a playground, I was standing right there and he just walked up and started snapping away, til I came at him like a lion. He showed me his credentials but I let him have it and contacted the paper, I also advised him he should ask children's parents first or he could get hurt. The dude was shaking when I was finished with him. If he didn't have credentials he would have lost the camera and took an ambulance ride.

 

ACLU is wrong to step in.