Out and Proud Pedophiles

Like Lindsay Ashford or Jack McClellan and websites such as:

http://nld.puellula.com/Main.html

http://www.boymoment.com/IPB/index.php?act=idx

http://www.boylandonline.com/

http://boychat.org/

http://www.bkgirls.net/

http://www.true-innocence.net/

And even more disturbing...

http://sns.puellula.com/Main.girl

So...

When it comes to people and sites like this what should be the priority? The right to free speech and privacy or the safety of children? Should something be done to find and help these people before they offend? Should they be watched closely to see if they will offend?

Discuss.

*Links are most likely so that is the reason for the labelling.

They should be punished for their actions (i.e. raping a nine year-old) but not for their words.

And why do you just happen to have all those links...?

I don't "just happen" to have them. I did some looking for this thread.

You don't think there is any merit to the idea that maybe a self-proclaimed pedophile should be monitored or helped before they go through with traumatizing a child?

Monitored and helped, it depends. I don't like the idea of anyone's privacy being violated, even if they might go after kids. A lot of people "might" do something, doesn't mean we should preemptively punish them for it.

I think if these sick fucks want to out themselves like that, then the cops should turn a blind eye when the neighborhood parents band together and remove the threat- permanently- from their neighborhoods. Sometimes you don't wait for the snake to bite; you just cut the motherfucker's head off.

So you are OK with someone being murdered for having different morals, and the police not doing anything about it? They aren't criminals unless they have done something wrong, but it seems like everyone always forgets about that in these types of threads. And even if they are criminals, that sort of vigilante justice is NEVER justified, in my opinion.

What about racists? Or people who are sympatheitc to terrorists? They obviously intend to harm somebody with their beliefs, so why not monitor them or do something about them before they harm someone?

"But...but...they aren't specifically targeting the children!! Won't somebody PLEASE think about the CHILDREN?!?!"

Protection of children is used to justify a lot of things in this day and age, and it's not always a good thing.

While I'd agree with that about 99 percent of the time, pedophiles most certain should fall in the 1 percentile that deserves no such consideration, IMNSFHO.

I saw this in the Q and A from the last link Tamar put in her first post:

Talk about your high horses.

:flow2:

I think in the case of pedophilia, it's a pretty direct and relevant justification.

But they haven't done anything wrong, other than having different morals than the rest of society. Why should their rights be taken away simply because they find younger people attractive? Unless they act on their attraction to young people, they have done nothing wrong.

As we all know, any crackpot psycho can create a website and post whatever he/she wants on it. There are a lot of sites on the web that I think should be nuked, and their owner anally violated with hot pokers before being lowered into a pit of rabid wolverines.

There have been several cases now where kids have been arrested for allegedly planning school massacres, based on nothing more than drawings in spiral notebooks, or a few emails. So maybe there's precedent for arresting these freaks before they actually go out and molest some kid.

Sorry, but I don't think that preemptively punishing someone for something they haven't even done is a good justification for violating their privacy.

Don't try to twist or convolute my words or meanings. I mean one thing and one thing only:

Pedophiles cannot and should not be tolerated. Where they are found, they should be imprisoned and/or put to death. Pedos who are putting up websites to fuel their own garbage fantasies and aid and abett their fellows ought to be burned at the fucking stake.

If that makes me a bad person, then I'm a bad fucking person.

So even if a pedophile has never touched a child or ever intended to touch a child in a sexual manner, you would have them be locked up? They haven't harmed ANYONE, yet you would have them imprisoned or put to death?

Edit: You know what, fuck you. You are worse than a pedophile. Targeting an entire minority of the population for extermination is very Nazi-esque.

So why stop there?

Why not just go full bore into watching anybody who has unpleasant and disgusting and unpopular beliefs/opinions that're intended to hurt people?

Why do children deserve such special protection?

Why should adults civil rights and liberties be trumped in such a manner?

Why not ban violent television shows since they harm the children?

Why not ban abortion since abortion kills children? After all, if children must be protected from any harm from all costs why stop there? Why not ban pornography since it can only harm children and teach children to rape and harm women?

Closely monitored...

I'm not one for pre-emmptive punishment, but I don't think we should wait around for someone to hurt a child either.

Of course they're doing something "wrong" - the question is whether they're doing something illegal by posting this stuff on the internet, and whether that merits being monitored by law enforcement (which I'm sure they are already by various task forces), or arrested and charged with a crime.

Pedophilia isn't just an issue of having different "morals."

My best friend actually fell for a pedophile's lies and came very close to moving away to meet him.

There's nothing I'd love more than to beat the shit out of him, or make him suffer a lifetime of horrible pain.

My friend's dad would love to put a dozen bullets or so in his head.

I don't think those feelings of hatred are wrong. He did a lot harm to my friend without even seeing her in person.
I don't even want to think of what he'd have done if he had actually met her and touched her.

One site has a section just for the kiddies. That's not luring?

So, we're now into violating the right to privacy?!

Like Justlee said, why stop with the sites? Hell, why stop with the children? We should monitor everybody that thinks differently than what some people consider the "norm!"

I'm sure most of the 'Forgers would love to be monitored because they own a gun, I mean after all, you could kill another person with that gun.

And lets monitor homosexuals while we're at it, even lesbians! And how about we monitor all Catholics because several ministers have had sex with children.

I mean, I think a lot of far-right conservatives are wrong and I'm sure a lot of you think the far left is wrong, so lets monitor those people.

You know what, let's just monitor everybody because we all don't have the same views, morals, or opinions.

I meant wrong in the legal sense, of course. I doubt it's illegal to have dirty thoughts about children. And courts have ruled that drawn/computer generated images of naked children aren't illegal, so long as they don't resemble actual children. So I doubt that posting fictional stories about wanting to fuck a kid is illegal (I assume that's what they're doing at the websites Tamar linked to, I didn't actually click on them for obvious reasons).

If one doesn't act on one's pedophilia, morals are the only thing in question. You or I may think it's immoral for someone to be thinking about a 6 year-old sexually, but unless that person acts on it, it's just a question about morals.

Are you purposely retarded? Attempting to fuck a child is wrong, and most definitely illegal, just like with murder. But one can think about wanting to murder someone without actually going through with it, just as one can think about fucking a child without actually going through with it.

Unless you want pedophiles charged with thought crimes?

Yeah, yeah- I'm teh evil. Whatever. Go suck a cock, Timmy. Just make sure it's an adult one, you fucking enabling apologist.

Jack McLellan had a website for a couple of years where he rated places to go and watch little girls as a resource for people with "GirlLove" along with photographs of children he took there, rating their appearance.

Apparently, there is nothing wrong with that either since it exsisted for years before the host finally caved to complaints.

Well, I wouldn't expect linking to be illegal. For instance, I could link to a YouTube video that has the entire Simpsons movie on it, but YouTube would get in trouble for it, not me.

I prefer to let the guys and gals at http://www.perverted-justice.com do their thing. Their methods are most effective.

Usually, the only reason pedos "out" themselves 9 times out of ten is *because* they want to molest/rape children!

Oh noes, how dare we step on the rights of sick people who are a possible danger to others!!!!!111!!



Are you trying to act dense on this issue?

Making a web site to lure children and gun ownership are two different things, and you know it, you hyper-sensitive ninny. Kiddy diddlers need to be locked away and given help. Or barring that, a jailmate by the name of Bubba. Either way, anyone stupid enough to put info online that can be used against them will eventually have it thrown back in their faces.

You want privacy, keep it on your journal, and I don't mean LJ.

Aren't those the people who help Chris Hansen catch predators?

Yeah, there methods are questionable. Solicitation of a minor, even though no minors are actually involved in the sting operation...

:flow2:

What are you talking about?

Jack went out to fairs and playgrounds physically and took photographs of little girls he found alluring, cute, sexy and posted them on a website, rating their appearance and rating the locations for "girlwatching"...as a resource guide for pedophiles.

He wasn't just collecting online photos and rating them. Though that is an icky thought as well.

How would you like to find a picture of your child with a pedophile talking about how much they want to touch them online? Wouldn't you want that person to be watched or treated?