The Right to Be a Sleazebag (part three of story)

by generaldecay | August 20, 2007 at 03:53 am

216 views | 0 Recommendations | 0 comments

This highlight follows on from this and this.

On August 14th, McClellan was arrested for breaking the terms of his restraining order (but it shouldn’t be long before people start asking if he was really arrested because of public pressure).

He’s one
of the few cases I know of this nature: he is a self-confessed paedophile who hasn’t ever committed any sexual offences (that we know of), and I think that his arrest offers the opportunity for an interesting and important discussion on whether he has actually broken the law or not.

Also, what should be considered a sexual offence? (This varies in different legal systems, of course.) For example, is it purely the act of non-consensual sex and/or sex with a minor, and should it include the downloading of images of children? Etc.

Jack McClellan was arrested in Los Angeles yesterday for exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Well, officially he was arrested for violating a restraining order that forbids him to come within 10 yards of any minor in California. But the restraining order was issued based on his public discussion (online, on TV, and in print) of his sexual attraction to little girls, coupled with the perfectly legal photographs of (clothed) girls that he took in public places and posted on his now-defunct website (which was shut down by the company that provided his server space due to public complaints). McClellan, who has never been convicted of a sex crime, says he has never acted on his impulses and will not as long as doing so remains illegal. According to Fox News, he "said he created the Web site to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls."

McClellan, then, has not done anything illegal; he has not even advocated doing anything illegal (which also would be protected speech, unless it was intended and likely to result in "imminent lawless action"). He may be perverted (not to mention stupid), and he is probably not an ideal babysitter. But his situation is analogous to that of a neo-Nazi who says Hitler had the right idea and wants Congress to take legislative cues from the Third Reich. Both are despicable and unpopular, but well-loved people who say uncontroversial things have no need for the First Amendment. Were it not for the hysteria about allegedly rampant sexual abuse of children by wandering predators, the parallel would be obvious to everyone (or at least to the judge who issued the restraining order).