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.

It was a direct quote.


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.

Meaning that you spoke of Jack and his actions under the context of involvement with the Jackson murder. The reasons behind that suspicion were just as flimsy then as they are now. It was in extremely poor taste to mention the two cases in the same discussion at all.

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.

But nobody (pedophile or otherwise) would be under the impression that a child in a candid taken at a public event was expressing an opinion. Your example of using my image assumes that you are explicitly stating that I hate pedophiles. Did Jack make statements about the opinions of the children in any photographs? Unless he has been known to do that, the defamation issue is out the window. No one seeing a candid of a child at a public event (regardless of the context in which the photo is presented) will make assumptions about the child's opinions unless and until the photo is presented with a direct statement such as "this child said..."