Mr. Brown’s –Thinking is criminal–

Jack Mclellan is a self described pedophile whom takes pleasure in posting pictures he takes of young girls on his website. Recently, he has moved to California and subsequently—due to his public announcement of his desires, was issued a restraining order restricting him from being within 10 yards of any child in the entire State. Here is the rub; Mclellan has never been convicted of a crime as pederast. While he has no problem announcing his attraction to little girls, and as repugnant as you and I find this thought, the man has not committed any crime, he has only expressed his thoughts. In this nation where we are considered innocent until proven guilty, this judge has taken upon himself to police from the bench. Somehow we have been launched into a world of pre-crime enforcement where you can be punished for something you have yet to even do, with the caveat in Mclellan’s case; that we know of. What has happened is an American citizen has been punished for his thoughts, not his actions. This is a direct violation of our First Amendment rights, the freedom of speech.

This is a dangerous precedent we have come upon. If our thoughts, as disgusting or atrocious as they may be can be punished through the court of popular opinion, when does this stop? This is not a defense of pedophiles, but of free speech. I wonder if Mclellan is doing a service by bringing this whole issue to light. California has rallied strong against this man, and if he acted on his compulsions, then I would take no issue with this. But can he even be considered a pedophile if he has not actually abused a child? How is it that one man who has only spoken of what his desire has become public enemy number one(the thought is sick, and his condemnation is appropriate), when at the same time we have half way houses in Garden Grove California for convicted pedophiles that are located within a stone’s throw away from an Elementary school directly contradicting court orders?

Allow me to draw an analogy. What if a twenty something, Middle Eastern male, created a website that stated he was a terrorist? What if on this site he posted pictures of public buildings on this site, nothing more, no plans of destruction or call to arms. He simply says he is a terrorist, and here are some buildings in a city. Would the government be just in arresting him and putting him in jail if there was no other evidence then a statement and some pictures? The man has done nothing wrong, only expressed his thoughts, would you support his incarceration? What would happen if we took the analogy further, and the users who posted pictures of public buildings on FLICKR became suspects for terrorism? I can hear Mr. White now saying I am drawing a false analogy, and he may be right. But when you can be oppressed in a country that was built on the notion of free speech our system has failed.