I didn't say that Jack models himself after the Zodiac killer. If that came out in the press, it's not what was meant.

I stated that the coordination - or complete lack thereof - of law enforcement in Adre'anna Jackson's murder was like that with the Zodiac investigation.

Also, the thrust of the legal argument was not pure intent by any means. The thrust of the argument was a course of conduct corroborated by stated specific intent.

I completely agree that there is no harm from a pedophile admiring a child in a public venue. But, that's hardly what the case was/is about. The primary requested order of restraint was to restrain Jack from attending venues where the primary activity is children's services or entertainment where the attendance was for the purpose of surreptitiously taking photos of minors and publishing them under the guise of pedophilia.

By surreptitiously taking photos of minor children it was meant - and could only be enforced - if the photo was of a particular child. That form of prior restraint is available against a person where the complaining subject is a non-public entity/person, as per a theory of false light publication (i.e., defamation).

Conversely, would it be a fair statement of your character if I secretly appropriated your image - specifically you - and placed it under the guise of pedo-hater? It's not a fair representation. Hence, the law permits such relief.