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

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying that the website is bordering on incitement but no one has said the website even suggests, much less advocates, any criminal activity. How is this bordering on incitement?

I know you said you didn't want to ban it, but you also said it would be pretty easy to make the website illegal without offending the First Amendment.

To that I say, (1) how would you make the site illegal, and (2) to me, that implies that you'd prefer the site to be illegal.

In your post about easily making the website illegal, you said that you wanted to protect political and scientific speech and clearly implied that other types of speech were not as deserving of protection.

As for me, I am as close to an absolutist on free speech as you will ever find, and to answer your specific question, I do not think that "incitement to lawless action" should be censored.


[/ QUOTE ]

He is recommending that pedophiles go to places x, y and z to meet children. It's naive to think that he is encouraging them to go there and chew bubble gum.

I do not want to make the site illegal. However, the views that it should be banned are not based on the censorship of an undesirable opinion; they're based on the fact that the speech on the site has certain intended consequences. It's a difference of degree between the current laws on incitement and banning this.

[ QUOTE ]

My guiding motto for these issues is that speech is not action. You can advocate that someone do something illegal and/or criminal, but that person must decide to act on your speech. The actor is the criminal, not the advocate.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's no a bad argument, and at one time I would have agreed with it; but the model of people as rational actors with free will is ultimately not a good one.

[jackflashdrive]

Cliff Notes: I WIN.

Quoting myself from much earlier in this thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Pedophilia is an interesting case because courts in the past have justified civil confinement of pedophiles AFTER their release from prison simply on the basis that (1) they are pedophiles and (2) pedophiles have a very high recidivism rate. I'm not sure what the current state of the law is, but given the fact that this individual (1) identifies himself as a pedophile and (2) knowlingly puts himself in situations where he has contact with children, I think civil confinement on the basis that he is a threat could be justified. I assume a judge would have to issue a restraining order first, limiting his contact with children for as long as he identifies himself as someone sexually attracted to children. Given the very threatening context of his web activities I don't think that would be unreasonable.

(Plus he is poor so how is he supposed to fight the restraining order? I don't think you get a public defender when issued a restraining order)

[/ QUOTE ]

Quoting Eugene Volokh's blog today (the UCLA law professor originally interviewed for the story in OP):

Restraining Order Issued Against Pedophile Blogger: A court has just issued a restraining order -- with no appearance by the defendant -- barring McClellan from (among other things) (1) "follow[ing], ... keep[ing] under surveillance, or loiter[ing] with or around any minor child," (2) contacting, "photograph[ing], videotap[ing], post[ing] on internet, or otherwise record[ing] any image of a minor child without parent's or guardian's written consent," "stay[ing] at least ... 10 yards away from" "any minor child," or "loiter[ing] where minor children congregate in, including but not limited to schools, parks, playgrounds, bowling alleys." The court reports that the order is "based on stalking" and "based on a credible threat of violence and harm to minor children." The order is ambiguous on whether McClellan is also barred from having guns -- those provisions on the order form are crossed out in one place but not in another; I take it the court's intent was not to apply them at all.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
10 yards away from" "any minor child," or "loiter[ing] where minor children congregate in, including but not limited to schools, parks, playgrounds, bowling alleys."

[/ QUOTE ]

One of these things is not like the other.

[Forbin]

I expect that if he could afford to fight it, the whole thing would get tossed almost immediately. At least I hope it would.

[ QUOTE ]
"stay[ing] at least ... 10 yards away from" "any minor child"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is particularly bad. So very wide ranging, it's like they crafted this specifically so they could come up with a reason to imprison him without him having committed any crime. I live in a city, and I think it would be extremely difficult for me to live something resembling a normal life without risking coming within 10 yards of a minor, even if I tried really hard to avoid them.

Trying to censor him is bad enough, but this is just a horrible overreach of the courts authority.

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
When they came for the pedophiles I said nothing...

[/ QUOTE ]
This is actually something I thought while I was reading this thread as. I mean, our solutions to pedophilia involve "writing in first amendment exceptions" and "civil confinement"? WTF? You realize once we cross the line to "It's okay for the government to do that to its citizens", they don't stop with one group of people, right?

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between art and porn. But please let's not get into that debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know it when you see it, right?

[Jack of Arcades]

nath, don't you know you that you don't have any rights when it comes to puppies and children?

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

this guy gets way too much attention. i saw him on cnn the other day. he looked like he was loving it.

[DrewDevil]

All the stalking laws are in murky constitutional waters anyway, but to issue a restraining order against a guy who has made no threats, done nothing intimidating, etc., wow is that overboard.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

i am sure that he civil rights will be violated at some point which will lead to a million dollar settlement.