Jack McClellan: Pedophile
was at work the other day — actually, about a week ago or so — and, as usual, the TV over the coffee counter was playing CNN. They were showcasing this “pedophile blogger” guy, Jack McClellan. I didn’t really catch what CNN had to say on the subject, as the damn customers will never leave me alone when something is going on that I want to see, so all I caught was several pictures of this skanky, greasy-looking guy in a fedora, and something about being a pedophile with a website. I assumed it was the NAMBLA people again.
Apparently not. Jack McClellan is a self-described pedophile, who was — according to the story — blogging about trying to get close to little girls (ages 3 to 11, here, folks), and how to get close to them, and where to go to find them, and so on. McClellan claims he’s never molested a child, “because it’s illegal”.
Unfortunately, I can’t get the Way-Back Machine to cough up McClellan’s sites — both of which have been taken down — so we can’t read for ourselves what this guy was writing. We’re forced to rely on what others have to say about it. And wow, do others have a few things to say about it. According to various articles, McClellan was basically writing a “how to” manual about finding and molesting little girls. From what I gather, he was also posting pictures of girls, not necessarily pornographic, mind you, just snapshots he’d taken. He was writing about where to go to see girls, after having gone there himself and taken pictures of the girls he found. He was going to places like daycare centers, play grounds, school yards, et cetera.
There is something of a controversy brewing around McClellan, centered around whether or not the First Amendment protects his right to publish his website, and whether or not he’s actually committed any crimes. Without being able to read his website for myself, and having to rely on what others say, I have to say, from the sounds of things, that he’s treading an exceedingly fine line of technical legality. Now, before the flame war begins, I just want to say that my gut instinct is to take this guy out to the back forty, have him dig his own hole and stand in it, shoot him in the back of the head, kick the dirt over his ass, and call it a good time. I mean, seriously. If he’s thinking about little girls this much, then odds are that he’s already done something illegal and just not been caught at it, and/or, he’s going to do something illegal and horrible in the near future. Ladies and gentlemen, there are just some dogs that have to be put down, and I don’t care what the Dog Whisperer or any pussified liberal civil rights fuzzy bunnies have to say about it. Some fuckers you just have to boot out of the life boat, kids, and this guy is one of them. He’s wasting valuable air that could be put to better use.
Be that as it may, it can be argued that the same laws that allow me to say what I just said, also allow Jack McClellan to say what he says. To the best of my knowledge, and granted, my knowledge of this subject is incomplete, it is just as legal for him to say, “If it were me, I’d totally molest that little girl,” as it is for me to say, “If it were me, I’d totally shoot him right in the head for saying that.” Whether or not McClellan has committed a crime has to do with what’s actually in his website, because it is illegal for him to provide the means for others to commit a crime, even if he himself isn’t committing that crime. For example, I can say, here, that I’d like to shoot the guy, but if I then publish a post wherein I detail how to buy the gun, and where and how to buy the plane ticket to get to LA, and where and how to find him, and when would be the best times to find him, and how to shoot him, and so on and so forth, and particularly if I know that my readership is made up of people who are extremely likely to use my information to actually go out and shoot the guy, then it may very well be that I have just committed a crime. That’s accessory to murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, or something similar.
It’s probably legal to talk about it, provided one is extremely careful how and what one says, but it is not legal for McClellan to say, “this is where you find girls, this is how you get girls alone, this is how you distract their parents so you can get away with girls . . . ” and so on. That may be where McClellan is committing a crime. It’s also worthwhile to point out that, at least here in Michigan, McClellan would most likely be violating some stalking laws. Trolling areas where little kids hang out will almost certainly get you put in jail in Michigan (and will definitely get your ass beat by some red-necked, gun-toting father who took his kids to the park that day).
And now, all of the sticky legal technicalities and gray areas aside — should we be doing anything about this guy? Well, hell, yes, we should. At the very least, this guy’s website should be considered a warning. If he hasn’t already, McClellan is almost certainly in the process of working up the nerve to harm children. We should hamper him in his attempts to the fullest extent of the law, as two fathers, Anthony Zinnanti and Richard Patterson, already have. They filed a restraining order preventing McClellen from being around areas where young girls might be, such as daycare centers, play grounds, and et cetera, which McClellan promptly violated. He was arrested for that, and the two fathers, who are also lawyers, are actively working to get his possible six-month sentence extended as much as they can. As well they should.
Pedophilia is not, per se, a sexual persuasion. It is never harmless. It is always illegal. Pedophilia is not, at this time, curable. It is treatable, but the urge never really goes away. Pedophilia is a mental illness. Jack McClellan shows, to me, every sign of someone has already, or who is about to harm children. Perhaps he shouldn’t be convicted of a crime, but the fact of the matter is that it is still legal to apprehend someone who is mentally ill, and who shows signs that they may harm themselves or others, and have them committed for treatment. It would be, as far as I can tell, perfectly legal to commit McClellan for treatment of his pedophilia, and then court order that he maintains treatment and medication, as well as that he stays away from children and areas where children are likely to be, and then arrest him and put him in jail when he violates those mandates. Because I will lay money on the fact that he will violate those mandates.
Sources:
August 20th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
The pedophilia thing is a very difficult subject to try and view from an “unbiased” perspective.
It’s hard for my to have much sympathy for the predator, especially when a person that does something considered by the vast, vast majority of the population as an abomination.
I feel that he’s within his rights to voice his opinion, as long as he doesn’t act on it… unfortunately for everyone involved - profiling works. If he hasn’t harmed a child yet, odds are good that he will, given the opportunity. That said - where does the line get drawn? Or, more specifically - what’s an acceptable way to draw that line, short of us becoming almost as monstrous as he is?
If his website offers hints and tips, then he’s also enabling other folks to commit crimes - The law has something against most resources that can put other people at serious risk.
JavaElemental Reply:
August 21st, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I think it’s next to impossible to take an unbiased perspective. I’d say straight out impossible, except there are therapists and doctors who seem to manage it. As for myself, my overwhelming gut instinct, straight out of my monkey hind-brain, is “Kill it.” I don’t know if that’s a societal response, or the mama-bear’s instinctive urge to protect the cubs, or what, but it’s extremely difficult to moderate that response.
On the other hand, gifted with higher reasoning as humans purportedly are (sometimes I wonder), I see that it is also important to do as you say — to deal with this kind of predator in a humane fashion, because we aren’t the beast that he is.
I have little sympathy for him — some of the sites where I read about McClellan had people passionately arguing on behalf of his civil rights, and the slippery slope argument, and having sympathy for him as he is a product of his environment, and yadda and so forth (the “fuzzy bunnies” I mentioned) — and my opinion of that is, yes, we must protect our civil rights, and deal with this sort of person in a fashion that adheres to the law and doesn’t leave loopholes to oppress other people, and so on, but at the same token, he’s a monster who will almost certainly harm children, so let’s not romanticize the situation. Does that make sense?
Scotto Reply:
August 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Oh, I more than agree that it makes sense… just hard to know what to do with a person that isn’t officially “guilty” of a crime, even though you know odds are very good that if left to his own devices, he’s going to hurt someone else, if he hasn’t already.
Freedom is a tricky business… How do you even warehouse someone who hasn’t officially done anything more wrong yet?
JavaElemental Reply:
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 am
You can’t. Although it seems he’s intent on stirring up enough of a crap-storm for himself that it might shortly be a moot point. I read an article somewhere today that he was released from jail on a technicality, and less than ten hours later, was off stirring up trouble again.
I’m starting to wonder if this isn’t actually some kind of warped call for help on his part.
August 20th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Actually, if he’s taking pictures of the little girls then that quallifies as child endangerment. Even if he doesn’t do anything it’s considered an threatening act and the parents of the kids can press charges.
JavaElemental Reply:
August 21st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
From what I’ve read, the guy is probably doing a handful of things that could be argued are against the law. As I said, he appears to be trying to walk an exceedingly fine line of legality.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
java-you know exacly how i feel about this subject. grat to see it here in this format, out to the public and said in a much better way than i ever could . thanks.
and once again–let me say–think what you like, feel what you like, state your opinion–great– ill defend your right to do so. civil liberty and all that.
start publishing a how to manual on how to molest little girls and i will use any means at my disposal, legal if possible and illegal if necessary-(-and willing to take the consequences)–but you will be stopped.
those of you who wish to sit inivory towers debating the ethics and morality of my position, y’all go right ahead.
i will be the one at the shelters helping the victims,the one taking a little little girl to get an aids test because she was raped, the one who holds a crying mother who doesnt understand how anyone could be so evil. i ll be the one who is cleaning up the mess the monsters have made.
and i will stop them if i can.
JavaElemental Reply:
August 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Academically, at a certain point, I recall the Nietzsche quote, “Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.” From gut instinct, I remember being willing to ride along with the baseball bat to rescue the poor little boy who was being forced to blow guys for his morning Cheerios.
It’s difficult to reconcile the two feelings.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:55 am
Hey I know!!! Lets have old Prezdint Bush make him an Unperson!!
JavaElemental Reply:
August 21st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Bad Bo! Don’t give him ideas like that!
August 21st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
McClellan is running his racket as a sociopath at best and a predator, given the chance, at worst. We don’t know what to do with this guy according to the law because he hasn’t broken any. Yea, he is a wake up call to the possibilities and pushes those that are cranked to take responsibility towards the likes of him. His presence is philosophical for me because I have to look inside and know what it is in my culture that produced him and his outrageousness. Perhaps instead of concern with McClellan, find out what politicians are legislating on sexual crime, et al. Get involved with something that works rather than worrying about some one craving attention.
JavaElemental Reply:
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 am
I have to look inside and know what it is in my culture that produced him and his outrageousness.
Y’know, I have to wonder about that. The medical community seems to think of pedophilia in “grades” — from “true” pedophilia, which almost seems to be a sexual orientation, albeit a wrong and twisted one, to “lesser” forms of the illness, which seem more like rape scenarios in their power-related dynamic. I’m not entirely sure how much “society” can be blamed for that.
August 21st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Well all legality considered I guess I feel safer knowing that his right to free speech is protected simply because if we took it away, what would stop them from taking away mine.
JavaElemental Reply:
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 am
Well, depending on what was actually in his blog, this is less of a Freedom of Speech issue. I mean, yes, we have freedom of speech, but we still aren’t allowed to “yell ‘Fire!’ in a theater” as it were. What he’s doing might fall under the “fire in a theater” category.