Pedo's web site - is he doing anything wrong?

[Aloysius]

Cornell - from what I've been told, depending on what the government's interests are and the forum of speech, the courts apply different levels of scrutiny to 1st Amendment cases. The lower the level of scrutiny, the more latitude the court has (e.g. this seems pretty locale dependent, like in a school setting the lowest form of scrutiny is usually applied).

It appears that this case would fall under the highest level of court scrutiny (meaning the court has the least latitude to "interpret" the 1st amendment).

[ QUOTE ]
Strict Scrutiny: The government must show that the law is necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest (such as the protection of children), and that the law uses the least restrictive means necessary to advance that interest. It's often called "strict in scrutiny, fatal in fact," referring to the tiny percentage of laws that are upheld when strict scrutiny is applied.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Examples of when Strict scrutiny is applied:

* laws restricting speech in public forums
* laws restricting speech based on viewpoint
* some laws restricting speech based on content

[/ QUOTE ]

This is from this link a lawyer friend sent me a while back (caveat: she's a corporate lawyer not a 1st Amendment expert by any stretch).

However, looking at the bolded text above, if it can be shown clearly that prohibiting the right to publish a website is in the interests of protecting children, maybe it would result in advancing and promulgating a law prohibiting this man's free speech.

Maybe I've got this wrong, so lawyers chime in yo!

-Al

[suzzer99]

When they came for the pedophiles I said nothing...

[bobman0330]

Seems like it would be essentially impossible to demonstrate that this guy is advocating something illegal, like molesting children, instead of something gross but not illegal, like leering at children in public.

Also they would need to find or write a law that prevents this guy doing what he's doing without it being unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

[Forbin]

Compare this to the abortion doctor wanted poster case from a few years ago (~2002). In that instance they were openly advocating killing specific people, and they gave pictures, home and work addresses. There was also an extra law already on the books that made it illegal to incite violence and threaten abortion performing doctors.

However even with a much more specific law and a website that was very blatant in advocating violence against specific, named, people, the Supreme Court still only ruled 6-5 against the website.

The much more general nature of his website should, by itself, make it clear that he has done nothing illegal.

It would probably even be legal for him to post a picture of some kid and say, "This is Johnny, he walks alone to <u>baseball practice</u> at <u>Spruce Park</u> every Tuesday and Thursday at 3:30 pm, and walks back home at 5 pm. I like taking his picture." He isn't telling people to go kidnap/molest Johnny, or expressing a specific desire of his own to do so. "Spruce Park" could be a link to google maps showing where the baseball field is, and "baseball practice" could be a link to the website for his little league team. He still would have done nothing illegal, though I'm sure if Johnny was abducted on his way to baseball practice, he better have a very solid alibi putting him somewhere else.


One of the linked articles says that the various groups opposed to him have put up fliers with his picture on them. It would be interesting to see where they got the pictures from. If it happened to be one of his pictures from his website, he could probably sue them for violating his copyright. That would be quite amusing.

[CORed]

As disturbing as this is, doing anything about this site comes awfully close to thought crime, IMO. It's not like pedophiles can't find playgrounds, parks and schools without his website. Being a pedophile is probably not something he can help. If as he claims, he hasn't acted on his urges, he deserves to be left alone. I wish he hadn't put up that website, but I think this is a case where free speech entitles him to be left alone.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I can easily imagine that the law could be framed in such a way that the site at hand would be illegal, but that the right to express an opinion or political viewpoint or offer criticism or communicate scientific ideas etc etc are not violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would love to hear your suggestion.

BTW, free speech is not restricted to political or scientific viewpoints or opinions, nor does anyone who believes in free speech think it should be.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said i would not ban this.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd just like to figure out a way to make it illegal?

[ QUOTE ]
To dismiss suggestions that it could be banned as fundamentally contrary to free speech is certainly an extreme position, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, it is exactly this type of loathsome, morally reprehensible speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect. That is why it seems strange to me that you say it would be easy to make this site illegal without violating the First A. Again, the First Amendment means less that nothing if it only protects "approved" or "non-offensive" speech.

[ QUOTE ]
I find your casual and inaccurate use of the term fascism distasteful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find your casual willingness to make websites illegal because you don't like their content distasteful. And evident of fascist tendencies. So if the shoe fits...

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Drew,
I am very pro free speech and I am happy that there are groups like the ACLU which fights to protect anti-semites, nambla members, and homophobes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to hear it.

[ QUOTE ]
That said, I believe that giving a bunch of pedophiles the address where vulnerable children is not protected by the first amendment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if a child is abducted at one of the book fares that are posted on this perv's website that he can be found guilty of incitement of a crime, something that is not protected speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the current standard, the speech has to advocate lawless action and be likely to cause imminent lawless action and is subject to strict scrutiny.

Does the website actually advocate the abduction/abuse of children? If it does not, then it is 100% protected speech, and even if it does advocate such things, you'd have to prove it was likely to cause imminent abduction/abuse.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I am not a lawyer and I hope that those more knowledgeable than I am can chime in on this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a constitutional lawyer but I got an A in con law. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DrewDevil]

By the way, free press swings both ways, and there's nothing wrong with CNN et al from publishing this scumbag's entire life history and picture so people can protest and picket outside his house day and night.

[MrMon]

[ QUOTE ]
It would probably even be legal for him to post a picture of some kid and say, "This is Johnny, he walks alone to baseball practice at Spruce Park every Tuesday and Thursday at 3:30 pm, and walks back home at 5 pm. I like taking his picture." He isn't telling people to go kidnap/molest Johnny, or expressing a specific desire of his own to do so. "Spruce Park" could be a link to google maps showing where the baseball field is, and "baseball practice" could be a link to the website for his little league team. He still would have done nothing illegal, though I'm sure if Johnny was abducted on his way to baseball practice, he better have a very solid alibi putting him somewhere else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no, as I understand it. Johnny is a private citizen and you have no right to publish private information about him. It's not criminal, but if Johnny (or his parents) object, it is actionable. Thinking again, it may be criminal if a child is involved, e.g. it may be endangering the welfare of a child, which is a crime, although I don't know if that specific law would apply here, but it seems like it could on the surface, especialy if something happens to the child.

Freedom of speech does not include the right to publish whatever you feel like about other private citizens. For instance, publishing a list of every neighbor, when they are away from home, when they are on vacation, and a list of their TVs, jewelry, rare paintings, and their alarm code on your website easypickings.com is not protected by the First Amendment, even if you don't "suggest" anything.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would probably even be legal for him to post a picture of some kid and say, "This is Johnny, he walks alone to baseball practice at Spruce Park every Tuesday and Thursday at 3:30 pm, and walks back home at 5 pm. I like taking his picture." He isn't telling people to go kidnap/molest Johnny, or expressing a specific desire of his own to do so. "Spruce Park" could be a link to google maps showing where the baseball field is, and "baseball practice" could be a link to the website for his little league team. He still would have done nothing illegal, though I'm sure if Johnny was abducted on his way to baseball practice, he better have a very solid alibi putting him somewhere else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no, as I understand it. Johnny is a private citizen and you have no right to publish private information about him. It's not criminal, but if Johnny (or his parents) object, it is actionable. Thinking again, it may be criminal if a child is involved, e.g. it may be endangering the welfare of a child, which is a crime, although I don't know if that specific law would apply here, but it seems like it could on the surface, especialy if something happens to the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure all of this is protected. Paparazzi can publish all kinds of things as long as they are not untrue and defamatory (and with "actual malice" if a public figure).

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of speech does not include the right to publish whatever you feel like about other private citizens. For instance, publishing a list of every neighbor, when they are away from home, when they are on vacation, and a list of their TVs, jewelry, rare paintings, and their alarm code on your website easypickings.com is not protected by the First Amendment, even if you don't "suggest" anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is, actually. I'm sure there are "invasion of privacy" causes of action available in most states, but they've got to be limited severely by the First A.

And it's definitely protected by the First Amendment if there's no advocacy of lawlessness.