Court Restricts Self-Described Pedophile

somebody should put this guy's photo on the wikipedia entry for moron

Sad thing is, I may have encountered this guy. Online. Not in real life. *shudder*

Thoughtcrime anyone?

I second the thought crime comment. This entire 'stranger danger! stomp on everyone's constitutional rights' hysteria is getting ridiculous.

So if I say I think about killing people, but never will act on it, will I be barred from every living person in the US for my naughty thinking? Come on.

At least he's trying to take responsibility for his disorder, or whatever paedophelia is considered. I don't understand how he's going to be able to keep that distance though, does he have to card everybody before he gets near them? To make his presence a crime is ridiculous, but to make people aware of his potential danger seems fine to me.

Civil rights my butt. This guy WILL eventually cross the line and it will be too late. Our overly liberal court system is sorely pathetic dealing with people like McClennan or sex offenders that have raped and killed children. "Incompetent to stand trial"-what a lame phrase.Start executing these people and they'll see they can't get by with their crime. Being a parent of three kids I wouldn't hesitate to take out somebody that would hurt any of my kids. I know the judicial system won't do anything but slap them on the wrist and serve a court-ordered restraing order to "stay away from girls under 18". God what a joke and what a moron of a judge.McClennan needs to be taken out of the public one way or the other. Educating your child/children about these things is fine but given how people like this can operate if he wants to hurt a child he'll find a way to do it. Most parents think schools and other public facilities ought to teach their kids about certain things and what parents should do be damned.

Wow, this guy has fifth grade teacher written all over his face.

Can I believe what I'm hearing? What has the world come to when a guy can admit to eyeballing young children, post pics on the Internet for other sick debased asses to view, and then complain about being targeted by parents AND police and be defended??? For all of you defending this fool, please explain your reasons for doing this, because I'd like to know what essential rights of his are being invaded unjustly. I suppose you'd like to have your children sitting next to him on the bus, under his panty-whiffing nose, since apparently, the cops have no right to place limits on his eye-feasting habits.....

In short, it's completely absurd as well as senseless to defend any such "rights" this pervert may have over being near children. His openness about the issue simply demonstrates the degree to which he's deviated sexually - even compared to this sexually pumped society, and YOUR openness in defending him simply means you've lost good sense as well.

P.S. If you fantasized about murdering people and even posted a website to foster such fantasies, tottter2, I'd be glad to have you institutionalized.....Because GUESS WHAT: that's how Columbine happened.....A couple of sick, disturbed asses fantasizing about the wrong things

First, is this guy a pedophile, as in he likes prepubescent girls, or an ephebophile, as in he likes young adolescent girls? (Humbert Humbert from Lolita seems to have been the latter.)

McClellan talks about "little girls," which leads me to think it's the former, which is far more disturbing than ephebophilia, which is pretty common.

The most important point is that he has no criminal record, is not suspected of any crime, is under investigation related to no crime, and has said he has no intention of committing any crime. Keeping an eye on him would be wise, but to publicly post his photo, info, and warn people to call police if they see him is overstepping and punishing a man who has committed no crime.

On top of that, an order to stay away from anyone under 18 is ridiculous. If he's a pedophile, he's likely not interested in them after 11 or 12 anyway, so he's not dangerous to teenagers. On top of that, how's he supposed to know how old people are? If he sits down next to a 17-year-old boy on a bus thinking the boy is 18, has he violated the restraining order?

Parents whould be careful, watch out for their kids, keep them away from McClellan or anyone they find unsavory, but McClellan shouldn't be punished for being public about his troubles.

Who says his website was disgusting or that he was drooling over anyone? SunLotus, there is not right to not be drooled over.

The court wold have done its job better to order McClellan into therapy, not slap a blanket restraining order on the guy.

It reminds me of the time when homosexuals were coming out of the closet, we said "oh god" I can't believe it. Now, today, this minute, no one will speck out against homosexuals or their organizations. Fruits, Pedo's and cowards we are! Wheres ACLU? You know, some of you could in all probability, charged with a "Hate Crime" right now. Be careful boys and girls, be careful what you say.

The point to be made is this both are deviant sexual behavior. Now it's the Pedo's turn to come out of the closet and they WILL use the same arguments as it relates to their Rights and they should be protected just like the homosexuals. One deviant right deserves another deviant right and so on and so on!

The fact of the matter is both are deviant sexual behaviors. Both have and are coming out in the light of day looking for people who can understand them and sympathize on their part for acceptance. Understanding you say! Please understand that the voters of our country continue to vote against same sex marriages. Why is that? You'll probable say that most people just don't understand them and therefore are afraid. I do agree with you about jumping the gun with the court order and the police taking his picture without committing a crime.

I hear both sides of the story and it makes me think of it from both angles. My take on it is what most people think, lets punish him. People are right in the fact that he really didn't do anything wrong, but there is a chance he could. Take into consideration this. If somebody at a local school mentioned how he liked to map out plans of a rampage at his school as a hobby then you know something would happen to punish the student. The same instance is here. If someone has any indication that they might do something unethical or harmful to society don't you think something should be done as a safety net to prevent this? I mean look what history has told us. How many times did we have a chance to stop something from happening if we only recognized the signs? Bottom line is something needed to be done no matter what.

Inside Story View:

This guy is from Washington State. He left Washington because the Evergreen State has been known to put people like him on indefinite civil commitments and treatment. Sometimes they NEVER get out.

Washington can be pretty tough on these guys. You gotta love it.

I've made these types of topics top priority in my understanding of psychology, sociology, philosophy and logic. What you have to understand is that pedophiles as minorities will eventually be accepted.

"Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric." - Bertrand Russell

The truth is once the myths surrounding pedophiles are extinguished, the general public will no longer need to fear them and will move on.

The breakdown of applied verbiage speaks for itself, pedophile- The word comes from the Greek paidophilia (παιδοφιλία): pais (παις, "child") and philia (φιλία, "love, friendship").

Where people become confused is that pedophiles are mistaken as child molesters; just as the media chose to use the word marihuana in targeting cannabis as a harmful substance (which it isn't), as marihuana was the Mexican word for cannabis and was used to link the aversion Americans had (and have) in regards to Mexicans concerning cannabis. Reversely, Media chose to use the term pedophilia unjustly in a manner reflecting a sort of equivocation in regards to child molestation.

Is it the same thing to love a child and harm a child at the same time? Although possible, this doesn't follow necessarily when devoid of unjust laws applied to the circumstances surrounding a pedophile and it's (I use "it's" because pedophiles are in no way only male, which makes me think of that South Park episode where the hot teachers sleeping with the little boy, and the men in South Park hear about it and say the kid is lucky, and say..."Niccccce..." when the first hear about the affair) --Anyway...-- love child.

In reality the harm from these situations comes from the destruction of the formed relationships, where the older member is sent to prison and the younger member is grilled into confessing matters which may have not explicitly applied.

On a quick note, as for ogling young girls, when and where is the line drawn into stone that says at what age you can ogle girls? Or are you not aloud to ogle a girl at any age? Do girls wear all that make-up so that we look the other way? Or are you only aloud to look at clearly presented cleavage when you're not an ugly dirty man who the general public would consider a perv? Where are these laws written? Personally I can ogle anyone I want, I'm a 6 foot 3 white male with brown hair and blue eyes, nobody ever complains, but I feel for the rest of you ugly bastards who just want a peak.

Anyway, the general public should be given a lesson in meta-ethics and historical morals before they pass biased western judgment on matters they don't even remotely understand. According to anything I've ever read, rape is about power, and pedophiles are about love, and those two ideals tend to be mutually exclusive unless you've been tainted by religion.

So...I've most likely attacked everything you believe in...And I did it in the name of love, equality and freedom...now as the proclaimed defenders of morality, I've left you with the means to do what you guys do best...throw mud.

****disclaimer**** this post was written on a whim, it can most likely be easily bashed through assorted uses of fallacies. However, in the unlikely event of plausible rhetoric, I will check back from time to time and defend the many flaws contained within this post. So in case you think you discredit any part of this post, it's 3 in the morning, I've got nothing to do tomorrow, and I'd be glad to educate you in your ignorance.

Okay, there are somethings that bother me and I don't get. let's look at both sides simply shall we?

Man likes "LG's" + potential to cross the line(admitted himself) = ?future pedophiliac?

But!!

Man admits to problem + has not acted on tendencies(not to mention he has exposed himself and sought forms of therapy) = ?healthy self rehabilitating human being?

Now, think for a second. The first one requires an almost OC Paranoia and 24hr surveillance to prevent, but the second... seems to me is a good example for every person reading this article in any situation in your lives, whether it'd be struggling with anxiety fear of snakes, losing weight. Hell, doesn't Alcoholics Anonymous start its program of recovery by admitting the problem? C'mon gives this guy a break. You wanna gauge his eyes out because he has a handicap in some form of mild pedophilia??

Besides, if you want me to be down right brutal... guys, you look at porn, don't even think about lying to me causer you'll only lie to yourselves. Why is it the "barely 18" mags are so popular? Why do you think can you even comprehend the simple reason why there had to be a laws passed to keep under-aged models out from such demand for them?! Its male instinct to find prime healthy females to bare strong productive children. It's embedded. Now, if you find your comfortable moral high ground to date "within" age range then so be it. I'm not condoning molestation. but I also do condone 45yr old males dating 20yr old fems.

Anyway, I'm just trying to say maybe this guy has overcome what could have been a downward spiral. What troubles me though is this: It has been said that someone who is crazy doesn't know he is crazy. So, what's going on here?

And finally on the topic of thoughtcrime. You think the children would turn him in by now? lol. But seriously is it me or is there a lack variation in the neanderthal-like duckspeak coming from everyone attacking this guy. Chillout, yeah?

Hmm maybe I went a bit too far with neanderthal. My apologies in advance. Oh, and yes I realize the girls he looks at are most likely below the age of 17 I'm not ignorant. But I agree with Jopo... Well presented cleavage was done so in such a fashion for one reason, to be noticed.

On another note I missed. Most parents are pedophiliacs anyway. No I'm not talking about changing a diaper or bathing your child is wrong. As Jopo stated: Love and friendship(in reference to a child). Hasn't anyone gotten sick of these little child exploitations commonly referred to as pageants. Need a reference? Little Miss Sunshine. Events like these are nothing but a sham disguised as something harmless. To pit your child against someone else to prove yours is more beautiful and talented. I think that is a clear form of pedophilia don't you?

I have discovered while pursuing a criminal justice degree that all states have statutes that make sexual intercourse with a female who is not the wife of the perpetrator a criminal offense if the female is under the age stated by the state criminal code. This crime is called statutory rape and speaks the will of the people. Additionally, I discovered the origin of current U.S. statutes goes back to English statute of the year 1275, when the age of consent was set at 12 years old, which speak the will of the (pedophile) people. In 1576, the age was reduced to 10 years old, which also speak the will of the (pedophile) people. California, for example, enacted its first statute in the year 1850 making the age 10, and again speak the will of the (pedophiles) people. Then in 1913, it was fixed at 18, where it remains. So from 1275 to 1913 all was well in the world of true love? I find this most interesting, all things considered. I also discovered in my studies that during the above time span (taking into account the population at the time then and now) there were 90% less divorces back then as compared with today. Any comments would be most appreciated.

CW you seem to be implying that all people who are attracted to females below the current age of legal consent must be pedophiles. You say this while telling us that the age of consent has varied over the centuries, thus criticizing those who lived in times when life was mean and short, and love and marriage had to be found earlier. Let's remember, for a moment, that Mother Nature determines when a child is sexually mature, and when healthy members of the opposite sex will respond to that. This cannot be regulated by a society of anxious parents. Parents are advised therefore to raise their children well and not depend upon Big Brother to coddle and protect them. As I mentioned, the age of consent has varied over the years, and it is currently only nine years old under Sharia Law. This is due to the fact that Mohammed, that great Muslim Holy man (and I say this with a large dose of criticism), consummated his marriage to his wife Aeisha (his third I believe) when she was (by her own account) only nine years old. This, of course, would be considered to be perverted by western standards (and probably by Natural law as well). Ask yourself, however, if you have ever looked with attraction at a women, you thought to be in her twenties, that you later learned was underage. Yes, the law is the law, but exercise a little understanding when casting critical evaluations at those who are only obeying the laws of both Man and Nature.

Please know Solidstag that it was a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that made the statement that the law specks the will of the people. The law in question for over 600 hundred years, not just in the U.S. but from around the world. This was it appears the social norm for over 600 years. The over 600-year time span falls short of the actual time. Bob T-169892, talks to the facts surrounding Mohammed, the great Muslim Holy man and his nine-year-old wife. Moreover, I noticed that prosecutors proclaim in court that the represents the will of the people. The question here I think is this, was it a Holly somewhere setting the standard by which we all should or should not live (Morals) or some named Religion, or was it simple the people as a hold within the community itself? I have not investigated when we pulled away from the Vatican in the U.S. but if we did, it probably happened in California in 1913. If this is not possible, then we the people had a sudden awakening to the world of ethics, principles, decency and or morality. A big thanks to both Solidstag and Bob T-169892 for your most informative input.

Please know Solidstag that it was a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that made the statement that the law specks (sic) speaks the will of the people. The law in question for over 600 hundred years, not just in the U.S. but from around the world. This was it appears the social norm for over 600 years. The over 600-year time span falls short of the actual time. Bob T-169892, talks to the facts surrounding Mohammed, the great Muslim Holy man and his nine-year-old wife. Moreover, I noticed that prosecutors proclaim in court that the represents the will of the people. The question here I think is this, was it a Holly somewhere setting the standard by which we all should or should not live (Morals) or some named Religion, or was it simple the people as a hold within the community itself? I have not investigated when we pulled away from the Vatican in the U.S. but if we did, it probably happened in California in 1913. If this is not possible, then we the people had a sudden awakening to the world of ethics, principles, decency and or morality. A big thanks to both Solidstag and Bob T-169892 for your most informative input.

Oh yes, let's look at the past 600 years of history to determine ethics. Since when has it been the will of the people that determines law? When it hasn't been monarchies, communism or facism, it's been aristocracies and heirarchies. Capitalism should never be quoted in ethics, because if the majority of the people liked child porn, it would be legal. I don't like basing morals and ethics on the majority, as they tend to be wrong.

Right or wrong, the fact of the matter is it was legal. Like the 1960's a small number of people said the majority of people are wrong for passing laws denying blacks rights and privileges enjoyed by whites. A long hard fight followed before changes in the law were made. People who refused to change caused the fight. So the facts are people make changes just like California in 1913. Thank you for your views on the matter Jopo they are well received.

For those who have gone on with homosexuality vs. pedophilia, I don't even think those arguments are worth the space used to refute the arguments. Its fairly obvious that we're talking about activities between consenting adults vs. activities where an adult takes advantage of a defenseless child (and by the way, a defenseless adult male who takes advantage of another adult males is considered rape, so there you go). The fact of the matter is that pedophilia is a MAJOR problem in the united states, where courts are not doing enough to protect the rights of defenseless children. We have far too many stories where pedophiles are released from prison and go on to attack, hurt, and often even kill more children. It is an outrage. If you hurt a child, you should be locked up for good. Despite what the "well intended" pschological associations attest, Pedophilia is a condition which cannot be cured. We have so many cases where these predators have attacked again and again, when they were supposedly "no harm to society." Yes, individuals do have rights, but the rights of those who cannot defend themselves (the children) supercede those rights. We talk too much of rights being "supreme." The only "supreme" right is that your rights end just as long as they aren't hurting anothers' rights. As to this case in particular, the man should be watched and watched carefully. He has admitted he has a problem, and it is now up to parents to shield their children. Until he has actually assaulted someone or broken a law, he cannot be taken into account by the law. NOW, if he ever crosses the line, THEN let him be taken and locked up. Until that occurs, he simply has not proven himself to be a danger. Those who have acted on their phelias are a danger, but those who have not, can only be labeled a potential danger. Parents, take responsibility for your own children. And if something should happen, God forbid...but thats the nature of this world we live in. We are bound by laws that say that a man is not guilty until he has actually committed a crime, prosecuteable in a court of law. That doesn't mean we have no rights, it simply means we have protected ourselves from becoming victims of excessiveness. Yes, the man could well turn out to be a danger. And I applaud the court for their decision. But as far as doing more, they have done all they can and should do.

I hope you had fun writing that, because I certainly got no enjoyment out of reading it.
I'm really not sure what I'm debating anymore, I'm certainly not defending child molesters, which have nothing really to do with this article.
Your claims follow the typical, "He likes driving really fast, he must like to recklessly endager the lives of everyone around him." approach.
No, the truth is, he just likes driving really fast.