Jack McClellan - Legal Pedophile

[Checkmite]

Were pedophilia illegal in and of itself, this would probably be valid, but it's not illegal in and of itself. Certain actions (which my be motivated by pedophilia) are, but they make no claim that Mr McClellan has performed any of those actions.

I disagree. I think the situation of a minor unwillingly having his/her image so explicitly connected with pedophilia can most certainly be considered defamatory.

 

[Loss Leader]

I disagree. I think the situation of a minor unwillingly having his/her image so explicitly connected with pedophilia can most certainly be considered defamatory.

How is the minor defamed?

 

[Tailgater]

How is the minor defamed?

The pictures being associated with this?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0407/0201_girl_love.html

Yay, it's night and I'm linking.

It will be one hell of an arguement either way.

 

[Checkmite]

How is the minor defamed?

By the fact of being unwillingly associated with a pedophile.

 

[GodMark2]

The pictures being associated with this?

http://www.crimelibrary.com/news/original/0407/0201_girl_love.html

Yay, it's night and I'm linking.

It will be one hell of an arguement either way.

By the fact of being unwillingly associated with a pedophile.

Defamation is effected by either of the following:
(a) Libel.
(b) Slander.

Slander is verbal, so this must fall under libel.

Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.

"false and unprivilegded" publication. Did he say something false? Not directly, so it must fall to section 45a:

A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a of this code.

(emphasis added)
If the pictures were not deemable to be libelous without the extrinsic fact that the photographer was a pedophile, it's not defamatory "On it's face". It could still be considered defamatory, with extrinsic fact, but he would have to prove "special damage".

As used herein, the terms "general damages," "special damages," "exemplary damages" and "actual malice," are defined as follows:
(a) "General damages" are damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings;
(b) "Special damages" are all damages which plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, business, trade, profession or occupation, including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel, and no other;
(c) "Exemplary damages" are damages which may in the discretion of the court or jury be recovered in addition to general and special damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant who has made the publication or broadcast with actual malice;
(d) "Actual malice" is that state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff; provided, however, that such a state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief on the part of the defendant in the truth of the libelous publication or broadcast at the time it is published or broadcast shall not constitute actual malice.

What special damages are they claiming? I can see general damages (reputation, shame, mortification and hurt feelings), but those are only allowed for libel "On it's face", which this is not. Special damages must be direct monetary loss. The only ones they seem to be able to claim would be "such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended as a result of the alleged libel". But the rest of section 48a shows when special damages can apply, and all refer to "A correction published or broadcast", which would imply that some statement must made by the defendant still have been in provable error.

It seems a rather tenuous thread from which to hang a case. Either they have a lot more than they are divulging, or the judge was a pushover, due to the emotional ("Won't someone think of the children") content. Considering the broadness of the order, the second seems more likely to me.

All CCP quotes from here

 

[Oliver]

Just one psychology article on how pedophilia is healthy will do.

Whaddayamean by "healthy"? No one mentioned this term.
But if you're able to explain to me why pedophilia isn't as normal as being gay, you get an article about pedophilia.

 

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Oliver
I think they can indeed live with their orientation without having to cross the legal line.

How?

Uhm, by avoiding to do a crime? Seriously: The Guy in question didn't do a crime. Maybe because he ran a Website as his way of outing himself - and share other point of views about this issue (Even including Picture-Sharing if I remember correctly). To remain silent often doesn't help to get problems under control.

And hats off - that appearance on Fox was something I couldn't imagine for my own with his kind of problem. Especially not on Fox.

It doesn't matter. If they can't control themselves, why should the public care if they don't have a choice?

Who said they cannot control themselves? Your distrust?
Just remember the Guy from the OP.

How is giving tips on getting away with pedophilia and posting pictures of children "self-help"?

You really think Alcoholics talk about how to get more Alcohol in Self-Help-Groups?

I'm guessing here but you seem to have a lot of fantasies concerning this issue. Help-Groups concerning psychological issues are being held with assistance from professional people, e.g. Psychologists.

 

[Checkmite]

Whaddayamean by "healthy"? No one mentioned this term.
But if you're able to explain to me why pedophilia isn't as normal as being gay, you get an article about pedophilia.

It's a matter of definition. Your implication is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation equal to and as valid as heterosexuality or homosexuality. This premise is incorrect.

Reasoning: "child" is not a sex. We have two sexes: male and female. An individual can be oriented towards the opposite sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). Or, perhaps even none (asexuality?). Unlike some other creatures (for instance, grasshoppers), human children are not androgenous nymphs; from the day they are born, they belong to one sex or another. They do not comprise a sex of themselves.

This is further underscored by the fact that pedophiles sometimes have regular adult relationships (gay, straight, or bisexual), and that they most often are particular to children of one sex (although some aren't so discriminating, in the same way that bisexuals do not discriminate between adult partners).

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphilia. In simpler terms, it is a fetish. Unlike the the S&M set, however, there is no legal avenue with which a pedophile can indulge his fetish.

I'm not entirely convinced that a fetish is analagous to a sexual orientation; nor am I entirely convinced that the person who holds a fetish is similarly unresponsible for his having that fetish.

 

[Tailgater]

Uhm, by avoiding to do a crime? Seriously: The Guy in question didn't do a crime. Maybe because he ran a Website as his way of outing himself - and share other point of views about this issue (Even including Picture-Sharing if I remember correctly).

C'mon Oliver, at least read the news articles. The picture sharing and how he is getting the pictures is the tip of the issue. If you have to think about it, you havn't read anything.

To remain silent often doesn't help to get problems under control.

Yes, professional help would be good.

And hats off - that appearance on Fox was something I couldn't imagine for my own with his kind of problem. Especially not on Fox.

It's funny the Americans that you will tip your hat off too.

Who said they cannot control themselves? Your distrust?
Just remember the Guy from the OP.

The guy from the OP can't control himself. If he could, he wouldn't be having the problems he is.

You really think Alcoholics talk about how to get more Alcohol in Self-Help-Groups?

Exactly. It's not helping, it's indulging in fantasies with other pedophiles. You got it.

I'm guessing here but you seem to have a lot of fantasies concerning this issue.

huh? Either it's the english barrier we have sometimes or you are in /sarcastic mode.

Help-Groups concerning psychological issues are being held with assistance from professional people, e.g. Psychologists.

Good. Send him a letter and let him know because, I don't think anyone has told him.

 

[Tailgater]

It's a matter of definition...<snip>

Good answer.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's a matter of definition. Your implication is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation equal to and as valid as heterosexuality or homosexuality. This premise is incorrect.

Well, it's unproven anyway. It might or might not turn out that paedophilia is something you are born with more than it is something you choose.

Reasoning: "child" is not a sex. We have two sexes: male and female. An individual can be oriented towards the opposite sex (heterosexuality), the same sex (homosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). Or, perhaps even none (asexuality?). Unlike some other creatures (for instance, grasshoppers), human children are not androgenous nymphs; from the day they are born, they belong to one sex or another. They do not comprise a sex of themselves.

This is further underscored by the fact that pedophiles sometimes have regular adult relationships (gay, straight, or bisexual), and that they most often are particular to children of one sex (although some aren't so discriminating, in the same way that bisexuals do not discriminate between adult partners).

As I understand it, exclusive paedophiles are a minority amongst child molesters. Most child molesters are ominvorous sexual predators. I'm not implying this makes McClellan any less likely to molest children - that guy has Danger To Kids written all over him in big red letters. I'm just pointing out, since it often gets missed, that we could lock up all the Jack McClellans and most of the child molesters would still be loose.

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, it is a paraphilia. In simpler terms, it is a fetish. Unlike the the S&M set, however, there is no legal avenue with which a pedophile can indulge his fetish.

I'm not entirely convinced that a fetish is analagous to a sexual orientation; nor am I entirely convinced that the person who holds a fetish is similarly unresponsible for his having that fetish.

The social stigma and legal risks associated with wanting to boink kids makes the stigma against being gay (even back in the bad old days) look trivial. If people are exclusive paedophiles by choice, it's an incredibly bizarre choice.

I'm guessing in McClellan's case it's not a chosen fetish. It looks to me like there's just something wrong with him.

In the case of the typical (ominvorous) child molester, I'm guessing it is closer to a chosen fetish. They aren't exclusively attracted to youngsters like McClellan, they'll just take sexual advantage of anyone they can if they feel like it.

What would be nice is if we could prove there was a biological basis for McClellan's problem. Then we could either treat him or put him in an insane asylum with a clear conscience.