Legal Catfishophile
 

If you're in CT then I expect you to read the article before making a post, so I'm not going to waste my time with a summary, and I'll get straight to the point.

I believe the police are taking the only action they can. None. And I completely agree with that. This discussion has come up several times, "Is it wrong if the fetish is expressed only in thought and not in action?" and things of that sort, and I bring it up here, because the situation now sets precedent.

What I'm asking all of you is this.. Do you believe the police should apprehend him for being an open pedophile, even though he (claims to have) never touched a child in any sexual way? If not, do you agree with the police or should they take other action? Possibly putting him on some sort of list, like the sex offender list, even though he's not a sex offender? Do you agree with his right to have and express this fetish as long as he doesn't harm any other human being in the process?

Basically, express your opinions. Many questions could be asked about the topic, just blurt whatever you feel.

I think what he's doing is perfectly fine. There's plenty of people who are turned on to the youthfulness of children, though I don't have a statistic and won't make an attempt at one, cause I don't have a source. We hear about only the perverts who make their move on the children, because those are the ones who are caught (most of the time).

One of the officers quoted, "Has he acted on it? I can't say. But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one [a pedophile] who has not."

This is an incredible stereotype, and people will take it for word because.. well.. he's a cop, right? Here's the thing though, is that ALL he sees are the pedophiles who come in after having acted on it, not the world of those who simply live it in their own mind.

That's my opinion, as more topics are brought up I'll make sure to give my point of view. Discuss.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Well, I think it should be OK to be a pedophile, just as long as (assuming he has any) the child porn is NOT real, for example, lolita or straight shota or some variation of that.

Just as long as he stays the hell away from children, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

He's done nothing illegal, shows every sign of continuing to do nothing illegal, and to even put him under survaillance is just a flat out violation of his rights.

From what the article describes, this seems like even less of an objectionable behavior than something like two consenting adults acting out pedophelia fantasies in a chatroom.

About the only thing he could be doing at all wrong is posting pictures of people without their permission. If he stopped posting photos of real girls, or only posted publically available photos, there would be no justification at all to do anything to him.

I completely understand the hesitance of mothers around him, the man does explicitly state that he has sexual attraction towards young girls, but being creepy isn't against the law.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

All he does is look at children right? Then there's nothing wrong with that. It's not like he's hurting them with his eyesight. People are freaking out because they expect a pedophile to be some sort of sex maniac who only thinks about abducting and having sex with kids. They don't realize that pedophiles can be normal people like anyone else (without considering their preference for children).
Edit: For people who didn't vote, here is the poll on that page.

Do you think Jack McClellan poses a threat to kids?
Yes 95%
No 5%

I can't believe so many people think that way simply because he's a pedophile and not afraid to say it.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

And given the longstanding tradition of pedarasty in the ancient world, it isn't like this is some new phenomenon.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Devonin, I agree completely, however most people don't understand ancient world history, and think that pedophilia is and should remain wrong and condemned. I believe the ACT of pedophilia should be condemned, but as you mentioned, there's no law against being a creep, and I must say I respect the law in holding to the constitution.

I do know that keeping him under surveillance is a violation of rights, however he did bring it upon himself. It's sort of the same way you can't go saying, "I'd so love to shoot up a bank now." and expect to not be under constant watch. But, many parents want him locked up just for admitting it. The other poll also showed, a majority disagree with how the police are handling the situation. And if you read the comments, a lot of them say, "He's a disgrace, he's not human, he's not an animal, he's a spawn of hell! He's a disgusting creep that should be shot!"

I do, also, agree with the fact that it's pretty understandable for parents to be creeped out around him. I would be if I were a parent. But, to say he should be shot is stupid.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Uh, he's a pedophile. He IS a threat to kids.

It's just that he's done nothing illegal, and the thought police can't arrest him.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

I would have to say that, legally, he is not committing any wrongs.
However, I also find that he IS inciting other pedophiles to do sexual assaults. He has a website with seemingly harmless child pictures, but he also gives names and places of where to get children. If anything else, he should be forced to stop these actions as they may start an actual real crime. But how can they stop him?

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Like I said, being a pedophile doesn't mean the person will do something to a child. It's prejudice. In this particular case, the guy would have to be crazy to even attempt doing something to a kid because he's almost constantly being watched.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

This is another gigantic stereotype. Just because he is turned on by the youthfulness of children does NOT mean he is a threat to kids. If he has the self control to not act on his pedophilia, he is no threat to children at all. Lots of people are turned on by extreme youth, it's one of the most common fetishes out there. People have their sexual partners do their hair in pigtails or dress like a schoolgirl because it makes them seem younger; It is, in essence, pedophilia. Don't lump the extreme pedophiles who go out and rape children in with those who have a handle on their fetish.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

If they say that thinking about pedophilia makes him a pedophile, aren't they, by their own logic, now murderers?

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Yes, but, keep in mind, people rarely think about what they're saying. They believe that their views are the right ones, despite how misguided.

I think it's true that he should stop telling other pedophiles great "trolling areas" or things of that nature, because it is provoking the ones that don't have control to commit acts. It's like someone posting a blog saying "This store would be great to rob, because of these reasons." well, even if this person is only saying it because robberies and theft interest him (not because he wishes to do it) it has the possibility of making other people attempt the act.

But, this could go to media as well. Would a movie like "Die Hard", which revolves around terrorism, PROMOTE terrorism? Should we censor that simply for the few that could possibly be tempted to act on the idea? Should we completely outlaw fetish fantasy porn (fake rape or S&M, things of that nature) simply because some twisted **** could decide to take it to the next level?

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

You all are arguing about morality and who's right and who's wrong.

None of that matters. What truly matters is the safety of the kids. Though the alleged pedophile himself MAY not be a danger, he is inciting others to do crimes themselves. He has a website where he posts seemingly normal pictures of kids, and he gives names and locations of where you could troll for kids. That in itself is a danger to kids. That in itself should get him arrested.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

He may not be an immediate danger to kids, but he's still very much a threat to them. I chose my words carefully.

And if you really think that a person who readily admits that he trolls for children is not a threat to kids, well, I feel sorry for your kids.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

How exactly is he a threat to the children if all he's doing is looking at them? You'll have to clarify for me, I can't remember someone ever being even slightly injured because someone looked at them.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Maybe you should say something other than what you've already said in here once. What you just did is no better than a double post.

If this man truly has never committed a sexual act upon a child then he obviously has control over his desires, and probably knows many others who are in the same boat as him, who he knows, would never harm or rape a child. Though his postings may cause some to go trolling and harm a child, it's likely intended for those like him. Should he keep all his information to himself simply because of a few bad apples?

The same way someone with a gun is a threat to people. It doesn't mean a danger, but someone with a gun is a threat. A lot of people with guns don't harm other people. But, the fact that some do, causes the many that don't, to be a threat. He's not saying he believes all pedophiles are dangerous (I don't think.) As he said, he chose his words correctly.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

I know what I posted is almost a duplication of my previous post, but still.
My point is still true.
Does it really matter who he intends for the info to be seen by? Don't you think that he would know that it is inevitable that some harmful pedophiles will take a glance and use the info as a tool? Of course he knows that.
It's like leaving a piece of gold out in the open for your friends to get. Someone else is going to get it. ALWAYS.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

So we should censor music, movies, advertisements, and everything else, because someone is going to get to it that will end up using it for a wrong purpose. I see where you're coming from now. However, I heavily disagree. I think censorship of any kind is wrong, but you seem to be a full supporter of it.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

So because he thinks about something you find offensive, he should be held criminally liable, because since he's thinking about it, he -might- one day do it...

Slope, meet Slippery. You two will get along great.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

here comes the thought police train woo woo!

About the only thing they could possibly get him for is some form of disturbing the peace or public nuisance or whatever, and I don't know the exact wording of those laws.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

I'm not a big fan of censorship, either, when it's not that big of a deal.
However, this is a big deal.
For most media, a lot of things can be harmful to someone in someway. However, sometimes they benefit one side more than the other. What I mean by that, is that even though media is double-edged, it can be more good/bad for one side of the audience than the other.
One side is that someone wants to watch the movie for entertainment, whereas the second side is that someone will watch it for baddie ideas. I think that for the most part, the media will entertain the first side more than the second.
So therefore, it's fine. Because it's inevitable that everything will have a "bad" side. But, if it leans to the "good" side more than the "bad" side, that's okay to a certain length. Because even though it can be bad, at least it's not very bad.
But, the alleged pedophile's actions lean far more to the side in which harmful pedophiles reside. That side I will call "bad". Because it leans more to the use of pedophiles, it should be gone. It ill harm too many in the future if what we think is true.

You're right though. All media can be bad. But the very bad one's should not be used.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

So, you consider it to be "Very" bad. You're using only biased opinion to support your logic. That doesn't really work here in CT.

Many serial killers admitted to having read Serial Killer books and researching the topic before-hand. Should we ban books referring to Serial Killers? Millions of kids cut themselves to scream-o music. Should we ban it because it's a bad influence on teenagers? A lot of murderers listen to suggestive rap. I suppose we should ban that too. Some kids burned down their house one time while trying to reenact what they saw on South Park. BLOCK IT!

All you see are the pedophiles that get caught for acting on their impulses. Well, guess what. There's millions more out there that have perfect control over themselves. This guy has that sort of control, but he's getting media attention? Something's not right here, he MUST be a bad person. There's no such thing as a good pedophile!

That's what I'm getting from your posts.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

From thesaurus.reference.com:

Note that threat and danger are synonyms.

I do have some things I want to say, but I can't word them well at all. If I can figure something out, I'll post it.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

*sigh*
By very bad, I meant that it leads more to the use of pedophile assaults.. I just couldn't find a word to use. How about the "entertainment" side and the "harmful" side? Is that better?

And, what you're doing is just debating everything I'm saying. You're not trying to fina a solution. You just like arguing.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Well, it's clear he is causing agitation among a good chunk of the populace, intentionally or not. The US does have what essentially amounts to "no trolling" laws in place, I just don't know what extent they go to.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Well, you had your solution. "Throw him in jail"

I'm figuring out what your logic behind that solution is. I'm also trying to get you to think with your head and not with your heart. It makes CT a more pleasant place.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Maybe he doesn't have to go to jail.
All I know is that the websites and info he posts shouldn't be posted. HOW the government will do that, I have no idea. What do you think?

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Although I agree with you on almost everything you've said so far (which is why I haven't posted), I disagree with this statement. Not all people with guns are a threat, it doesn't matter how you word it. A more correct statement is that a person with a gun is a possible threat. To be threating you have to (Oxford definition): have a hostile or deliberately frightening quality or manner. Simply having a gun does not mean you are hostile or deliberately frightening. This is the same way for a man who's a pedophile.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Okay, in SOME conceivable context with SOME loose definitions of the words, those two might be synonyms. You'd be a fool to think that that means the two words are interchangeable. Do you also think that warning labels that say "caution", "warning", or "danger" mean the same thing? Because thinking that could kill you.

From dictionary.com (a much much more reliable source when comparing the meanings of two words:

threat:
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
2. an indication or warning of probable trouble: The threat of a storm was in the air.
3. a person or thing that threatens.

(emphasis mine)
When he says that he trolls for kids, he's indicating that he's a threat to them.

danger:
1. liability or exposure to harm or injury; risk; peril.
2. an instance or cause of peril; menace.

His record shows, however, that he is not an immediate danger to them. That is, he should not be banned from public places which kids frequent. He has shown that he is a threat, and should have an eye kept on him (though not necessarily in a surveillance sense), but not an immediate danger. The instant he actually goes after a kid, though, he is.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Just as a note there Guido. These are the same website. The actual URL that going to "dictionary.com" links to is "dictionary.reference.com" and "thesaurus.reference.com" universally uses the exact same database to run.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Key word: probable. He has stated that he has no intention to ever harm a child, never has harmed a child, and there is no evidence that he has harmed a child, therefore I don't think "probable" applies there. "Possible" is better.

But at this point that's just getting into different interpretations of definitions of words, and that never leads to anything productive.

And I still can't find a good way to phrase my thoughts, but I'll try and make do. Try and understand what I'm trying to say, rather than what I'm actually saying. If that makes any sense.

It seems to me like this man recognizes that there is a "problem" (term used loosely) with him that others would not like. Because of that, he let everyone know even though he was under no obligation to do so, with the hope that the people would come to accept he would never intentionally harm a child. While this is noble in theory, it was probably a pretty stupid move.

People make assumptions and believe that a "pedophile" is someone who wants to sexually abuse children. "Ped-" means "child" (as in pediatrician), and "phile" is related to pleasure or compatibility (as in bibliophile, someone who loves books). Thus, "pedophile" does not inherently mean a desire to abuse children, but rather an attribute that makes one attracted to children. It's up to the person to decide how to act based on that attraction.

One thing I don't agree with is his posting of certain information on the Internet, but I can't even convince myself why I shouldn't agree with it. At the same time, I can't convince myself why I should agree with it. All I know is that for some reason unbeknownst to me, I don't think he should be posting the information that he does on the Internet (this is one of the reasons I was averse to posting).

At this point, I've lost my train of thought.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

hehe

Sorry man, I had to.

Back on topic, I think the police are overreacting wayyyyy too much on this. Maybe they might want to start a point in that he probably shouldn't be so open about being a pedo and such, but the fact that he just has a sexual preference is, well, just that and nothing more.

But really, I get that pedos can ruin lives and such, and I get that it's certainly at least somewhat of a threat, but I wouldn't say it's enough to make a big deal of it.

I see taking away someone's right to be around kids to be pretty harsh, even if the person has a sexual attraction to them. I mean, there are many, MANY people who don't even admit being a pedo, still hang around kids, and never commit any act, just have a sexual desire. Kids are so lively and such, they make most people happy. Should we really just take that right to see kids away from someone just because we're afraid they might have sex with one of 'em even though they have never done so thus far(or at least, no one has proven it to be done thus far)?

I mean, and this is a question for everyone, if you had a sexual attraction to someone which could cause legal problems(if you were to have sex with them), would you really try to get them to have sex with you, even if it could mean quite a long time in jail and a permanent marking on your name that wouldn't look too good?

Probably tough to imagine, but try to.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Honestly i think it is the same as if a man said, "I love having sex with women", does that mean he is suddenly going to go out and rape someone? Most likely not.

From what i can gather, i think that the police do the honorable thing by doing nothing because anyone who desires virtually anything can be a threat to it if their thoughts get too extreme. Just because i desire money doesnt mean im going to rob a bank. However, this entire discussion/debate is based off of circumstantial evidence and both sides cannot say for sure that he will either remain a law abiding citizen or if he will turn for the worst and act on his thoughts. Just keep in mind though that just because someone says something, it doesnt mean they mean/will do it, it can be taken as any concept you please (a call for help, a heat-of-the-moment statement, etc).

As for the matter of promoting such illegal actions i think its deplorable to say the least. If he actually says anything or provides information to aid in someone committing a crime then i believe he should be punished.

Btw, i didnt read the actual article because for some reason it would not let me go there, i clicked the link and tried copying and pasting it but to no avail... So if you could give me an easier way to get there it would be much appreciated.

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

devonin: I'm well aware of that.

It's just that if the meaning of a word is called into question, would you rather listen to the guy who cracks open a dictionary, or a guy who pulls the thesaurus?

That is, it's not like reference.com is or isn't reliable, it's that one form of information is much more useful than another.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

Does a crime need to be commited for a Restraining Order to be issued?

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

You need legal justification, yes.

Censoring the posting of places where children frequent on his website would be a flat out violation of his first amendment rights.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Guido... why are you bothering to fight an offtopic battle of semantics.


as the majority have stated... while this dude is a creep, there is nothing wrong with what he's doing. i can guarentee that many many many guys ages 19-25 (if not older) have sexual feelings towards younger girls when walking around Six Flags or another similar amusement park, where there are girls of all kinds of ages walking around in all states of undress.

just because this guy is 45 and is probably trolling for 6-10 year olds and is much more proactive and vocal about his thoughts doesn't mean that he's any more dangerous to underage girls than the 19-25 year old who thinks the 14 year old in the bikini is really hot.

thoughts are thoughts. as long as they stay thoughts and opinions and not actions, there is nothing wrong with it. hell, you can find much worse stuff on the internet than that guy.


ps - omg, tass posting in CT.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

lmao catfishophile.

At any rate, he's no threat to children. At all. Maybe one day he'll decide to go out and rape some kid, but he'll cross that bridge when he comes to it. The police are violating is (implied) right to privacy by videotaping every move he makes, thats just stupid.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Is this national catfish day?

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

This reminds me of a story. Most people have probably heard of those police that will try and arrest pedo's by talking to them online and pretend to be young girls. And when they pretend to meet up they arrest them. I think that is extremely wrong of the police cause its arresting someone for something they didn't do. Kind of like minority report but thats just a movie.

Someone who is a pedophile doesn't mean they are a bad person. A pedophile can be attracted to small children while still really care for them and ever want to hurt them. Just because someone thinks something doesn't mean you should judge them for it.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

You misunderstand how the police act in these situations. Those posing as young girls only make responses to those who talk with them; they never start a conversation themselves. The person on the other side is always the one to suggest they meet up, and the fake girl agrees. It's always the other person who starts anything (the conversation, meeting up, etc.). The police are specifically told not to do it, because that's called "entrapment." Essentially, "entrapment" is when the police entice someone to commit a crime in the hopes of arresting them for it, but in this case, the police are only going along with what the other person suggests, and therefore it is not entrapment.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

There's an exception if someone has been rightfully accused of molesting children. When the whole "Fake girl" ploy was first introduced to the police, that's basically what it was used for. Evidently, they overdo it these days.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Well, entrapment (As pictured in the movie 'Entrapment') is in most countries illegal for the police to take part in. And if you can prove entrapment, are automatically acquitted of all charges to do with that entrapment. Besides, anyone who has ever gone into any online chat ever is aware that almost nobody talks to anybody else without asking "a/s/l" first, because if you lie about that, and its logged, if you later go "A-ha! caught you!" you can't actually do anything with your evidence.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

If I were a parent, I wouldn't want somebody looking at my child with hungry eyes.

It seems like harassment, even if not legally so.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Well, then you ask them to leave, or you take your kid and leave. Both of those are a far cry from "24 hour survaillance or prison"

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

That's the thing. There will always be people who do things that make people uncomfortable. Should we go about arresting people just because we don't like what they do or think about? Should a Jew be allowed to press charges against an Arab simply because Arabs stereotypically are anti-Semitic and technically "a threat" to Jews (or vice versa). Should Black people not be allowed to own guns because stereotypically, all black people are gangsta thugs and a threat to everyone around them? Should gays be kicked out of America simply because seeing two men kiss in public makes me uncomfortable?

F*ck no.

America was founded on the concept of Freedom, especially freedom from persecution, and as long the man isn't breaking any laws, the government has no right to act.

That said, I think the mothers in this article have every right to do what they are doing, as long as they don't violate any laws or rights of the pedophile in the process...because wouldn't it be hilarious if the man got a restraining order against the very same mothers who want him out of their neighborhood?

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

You know, it occurs to me that this guy is helping the parents of the community by publicly describing where and how he trolls for kids. Instead of trying to run the guy out of town, the mothers should be using his information to plan protection for their kids. If they pay enough attention they could stop actual child molesters, whereas if they sensed no immediate dangers they run the risk of leaving their kid open.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

wow so wat your saying is that if you had a source for children you would go after them lol nah im not bagging or anyting i hate pedos' and anyone interacting with children like that its disgusting i mean if i lived near him i would first kick his ass then move away...to a galaxy far far away lol

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

So how do you know you won't have an uncontrollable sexual desire for kids when you're 30/40, Mr. khknowitall?

Hell, even 20, around when a person is started to be considered a pedo, even if the people they like are only several years younger than them?

Really, you should consider everything to be possible. I've had a lot of weird sexuality changes come and go in my life.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Also, "Mr. Know-it-all", realize that until the police have a warrant for his arrest, consider the fact that you're beating up an innocent man.

Also consider the fact that you type horribly. Read the CT rules.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Also, his response shows a complete lack of comprehending the statement he was responding to, so lets all just ignore him and move on:

Actually...is there much to discuss? We all agree that he is creepy and that people should be allowed to be nervous aruond him, but that he's done nothing wrong and is protected by the law...

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

maybe because if the pedo hasn't "acted on it," we have no way of knowing!

I saw this **** on CNN today and I thought I was watching Fox. what the ****ing christ, people openly expressed that they wanted this guy locked up EVEN THOUGH (AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGED THIS) HE HAD COMMITTED NO CRIME.

Sweet. Let's throw people away for their thoughts. That hot coworker you want to bone? Oops, you're a rapist! That asshole you'd beat the **** out of if you had the chance? Oops, you're guilty of assault!

It's such a ****ing hazy line anyway. Legally, anything under 18 is "pedophilia" and by the legal definition (which is what matters) The Beatles were all pedophiles for singing "well she was just seventeen, if you know what I mean." Yeah some people are attracted to people of different ages. People have weirder fetishes than being attracted to kids. This is all completely irrelevant anyway, the main issue is that you can't throw a guy away because of what he hasn't done.

I read a great book about this once by George Orwell. The ****ing end.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Well said, but avoid the cussing.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/03....ap/index.html

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

They've officially violated his rights, as far as I'm concerned.

He claims to be innocent of any wrongdoing, his legal status shows that he has never been convicted of committing any crime, possibly (I'm not positve) never having even been -accused- of a crime, and now he's being displayed to the public as a threat? That's a gross misuse of legal power.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Evidently, they're not 100% true to the right of free speech IMO.

edit:

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

I expect a well-publicized legal battle to ensue as the result of that ruling. I also expect McClellan to win the battle, as he has done nothing illegal and therefore restricting his rights by initiating a restraining order against him towards all minors is legally unfounded.

Keep your eyes on the news, folks.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

I can't quite comprehend how anybody could believe he's not a threat to children. He's done nothing illegal, he cannot be legally arrested or fined, but that does not mean that what he does is right. I don't mean to get into another argument here, but it's like handing marijuana, paper, and a lighter to somebody and walking away while saying, "Don't do anything bad now."

Perhaps the analogy blows things out of proportion a bit, but it gets the point across. Providing pictures of children to the public, even if they are not child porn, does indeed encourage pedophiles, and could mean a possible increase in sexual acts committed by other pedophiles.

But as Toph said, even though we made different points, the debate is moot. Nothing can be done unless the man acts on his thoughts, so whether or not what he is doing is right does not matter.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

He probably knows that he's not a threat to children, but can't be touched by law enforcement agencies due to the fact that he's done nothing wrong. As long as he does nothing wrong, he's in God's hands.

There's the first and fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights for you.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Okay, so every single instance of pictures of children everywhere on earth encourages pedophiles and is wrong... do I really have to point out the folly of this statement?

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

That's pretty ****ing unfair. There's like, a person under 18 every 20 feet of you in a mall, or a line when you're grocery shopping. And he didn't do a damned thing. Now he can't shop for groceries or go to the mall :/

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

I love how you seem to believe that I wanted to get into a fight about definitions, but you seem to have missed this part of my post:

I stated there that arguing about definitions does not lead to productive debate, so why are you bringing it up while saying I wanted to do so?

Also, you said that he may not have done anything illegal, but that doesn't mean what he's doing is right. That's completely correct. What he's doing isn't right, but it isn't wrong. It's neutral; nothing inherently good or bad comes from just looking at children.

You also seemed to miss this other part of my post:

I'll let you reread it so you can understand my position.

As for your analogy, think about this. Assume you're the person in the scenario? What would you do with the materials given to you? Throw them away or turn them into the police, I'd expect. If not...well, let's not get into that.

I think a better analogy in your case would be a cigarette and lighter given to a smoker determined to quit. This is similar to the pedophile case because in both instances, someone attracted to thing x is given the tools to act on his attraction, but is determined not to. And even in that case, I would -hope- the smoker either refuses the items or throws them out. Now, I don't know just how hard it is to quit smoking, so perhaps it's a heck of a lot harder to refuse such things than I'm thinking, but I doubt pedophilia creates an addiction anywhere near as strong.

Once again, if the police and the people simply respect McClellan, and ask him to stop what he's doing (posting pictures on the Internet) on the grounds that he is assisting others in committing crime, I hope he would agree. If not, I think too highly of him as a person.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Okay, he doesn't encourage pedophiles, he just tries to accept them and aim them at the children.


To Relambrian: I missed that part of your post. I apologize. Also, thank you for improving my analogy. I only spent a couple minutes on my post, since I was in a hurry.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Not a problem; that happens to everyone. And you're welcome with the analogy thing; I tend to be very good at creating them.

For future reference, it's "Relambrien" though, not "Relambrian" :D

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. I can't read your mind, so I don't know when you are saying something in the context of something else unless you point it out. You said:

It was an absolute statement, without an addition that it was only within the context of him posting on his site to his particular audience.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Unfortunately, the executive branch of the United States is pretty much counter-effective when it comes to enforcing the law. For those of you who are retarded when if comes to the United States government, our government is divided into three branches, the Legislative branch, which makes laws that only get vetoed by the President, the Judicial branch, probably the only Branch of government that does any real work, and the executive branch, which enforces the law by breaking it. The executive branch includes: the President, people the President talks to, the military, and police. The executive branch is only good for two things: dropping bombs, and shooting black/brown people. When the executive branch isn't dropping bombs or shooting blackie/brownie it's: breaking the law, getting its dick sucked, or choking on a pretzel. In this case, it's merely breaking the law. When the executive branch is done f*cking things up, the Judicial branch steps and decides whether or not the executive branch should have done what it did.

If yes:
Prosecutor :)
Defendant: :(

If no:
Prosecutor :(
Defendant: :)

It's only a matter of time before this case is appealed.

You can trust me on this, I watch a lot of Law and Order (but not CI...only dunces like CI because it has that guy from Men in Black)

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

It seems that some people throughout this argument have been throwing around assumptions such as "posted pictures of children increase sexual acts on children" and what not, but quite honestly, no one really knows if those pictures will created an increased risk or not. The police are wrong in restricting his rights, and more than likely it will be overturned, but understand as a parent the most important thing in your life is your child, hopefully, and any sort of possible harm or threat will some see sort of retaliation or preventive measure against it. However that is not to say the parents are correct in what they are doing, the term "overkill" comes to mind, because honestly he has done nothing wrong. Now, if this man had already been run out of one state, and is now going down a similar road in another, that man really can only blame himself. He knew what the parents reactions were going to be, he saw it himself in Washington state, so why did he remain so public about his view, why did not "keep it on the down low". I know, it would be wonderful if the whole world could just get along and accept everybody for who they, but sadly this is not reality we live in. Now, will his site really help other violent pedophiles rape children, probably no more than Google Maps will, because it really doesn't take a genius to figure out where children play or gather. Perhaps we should just wait and find out if such sites and pictures will encourage sexual acts, with no other information to go off of, there is really not much else anyone can do. Now if the police repeal the restraining order, and wait, and nothing happens, then it is all good, people with sites similar to his get to keep on being creepy and doing their thing, now if children start getting raped one after another, then a legal precedent can be set, and future action can be taken the foreknowledge they now have. It sounds cruel I know, but honestly without infringing on his rights there is nothing else they can do, this would really just be a great time to gather data on people similar to him, and be able to find links between pedophilia and violence, and differences between those who act on it and those who do not.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

The police should be working with him, not trying to arrest him.

As for his website: Think about this.

He's given the creepy icky molesty type of pedo's a hunting ground for children. This seems like a bad thing, but it also means that he's given the police a hunting ground for molesters.

If this guy knows all the tricks, and is this open about that fact, then they should be asking him for help cracking down.

But of course, people tend to use their heart more than their brains.

~cow~

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

But would he help the police catch people engaging in an activity that he doesn't think is wrong, even though the law says it is?

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

No probably not, you simply look for behavioral patterns in similar people, different sites these people gather at, how many of them actually are dangerous, ect. Fully within his rights he can be used to help the police indirectly, simply by using what they know, and I am sure he would love to clear up the differences between dangerous pedophiles and non-dangerous ones, as it would help to erase the bad stigma from his name, as well from people similar to himself.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

The question becomes, "Just because he claims to be a "non-dangerous" pedophile is he actually against the "dangerous" aspects of pedophelia, or does he personally just not consider the risk of being caught worth it?"

If he finds the idea of -actually- doing the things to kids that he wants to do to kids in any way offensive or disgusting, then yes he'd be a valuable tool in the same way that many people in the porn industry are instrumental in finding and taking down child porn rings. If, however he has no problem at all with the fact that plenty of people don't resist the urge to enact their desires on children, he'd be completely useless to the police unless (as they have) they start violating his rights to get information.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Then I guess we will just have to see what road they go down, as until we really know what he has to say, all we can do is speculate and guess, and what if.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Personally, I respect him for having the cojones to come out and admit his fetish.

I think that he's perfectly harmless, and should be left alone for the most part.

Think about it, why would he let everyone know he like kids if he intended to do something to them? It would be just plain stupid.

Anyway...I'm leaving this topic, because this isnt the place for one as accepting as myself.f

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

It's never a good thing to be a pedophile. It's a mark of shame because you did something sexual to a child.

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

Please actually read through the thread before deciding to just respond to one post you happen to feel like responding to.

The entire point of this man's claims is that he has NEVER done anything sexaul to a child, so your point doesn't even have relevence to the OP, and moreover, you've decided that it is shameful to have a certain sexual predeliction...do you feel the same way about fetishes that don't involve minors? Or is it solely the act of finding children attractive that you find shameful?

Re: Legal Pedophile
 

The thread was about a guy who never did anything sexual to a child. A guy just like you, but with sexy thoughts about children.

Think of all the thoughts you've ever had in your life. Surely you've thought of something illegal or immoral. Surely your beliefs run counter to the law in some area. Maybe even counter to public moral opinion. If you never acted on these beliefs, should you be locked up?

Re: Legal Catfishophile
 

I know this is an old topic, but I just think it's damned funny that some people actually think thoughtpolice is a good idea.

Re: Legal Catfishophile