I'm still wondering what you get out of all this. You say Jack 'models himself after the Zodiac killer,' then expect us to be interested in dialogue with you?

Tony, I don't care whether you live or die. But if you want a lucid response from someone with an IQ of 147 who was the child in a romantic relationship with an adult, convince me that I have something to gain (intellectually? politically?) by taking the time to dialogue with you.

I'll hand you this. The CL community is a fucked up bunch by and large (circumstance?). And no, Jack McClellan doesn't interest me as anything other than cannon fodder. I can't afford to care more than that - and no, I don't know that he hasn't offended. I just hope the rabid antis eat more crow than he does before this little firestorm burns out.

You've certainly presented statements that are beyond what I'd expect from most people. But I question whether you sincerely mean them (only tangentially - an argument is not made valid or invalid by the sincerity of its presenter). And I wonder what you would see done based on them. IMO, American culture and legal thought would have to change vastly for truly fair and constructive relationships between adults and children to be possible. Even our existing human rights were argued badly by the framers of the Constitution, such that they erode constantly.

I also take issue with any legal argument based on intent (with regard to the photo-taking), or which holds a person accountable for their intent. The state should not be allowed to regulate thoughts, regardless of the benefits. At a certain point, a society can use such unethical tactics to protect itself that it loses the right to survive. Granted, a society has the ethics it can afford. But operating by that often leads a society to underestimate what ethics it can afford. And no legal argument should ever be presented without considering its larger implications. If passed it WILL be case law. Try to make case law which cannot be misused or misunderstood.

Additionally, these are public venues. Stock photos or promotional video or news clips will likely be taken for general use, and may find their way to a pedophile (who, again, must not be prosecuted for his thoughts). You spoke of harm to the child. There is none in the act of a pedophile admiring a photograph of a child in a public venue. For him to harm her they would have to come in contact. Even if he is a habitual molester, a photograph of a child at Six Flags or the beach will not give him the means to locate her.