Are Online Threats Taken Seriously?

by Jackie Ibanez

Are online threats taken seriously? This question has been raised in the wake of fitness club shooting near Pittsburg.

George Sodini killed three women and himself after bringing in a gun to his health club. Before the shootings, Sodini outlined his plot and reasons for his rage against women on the internet.

Although many said they would dismiss threatening comments posted on the web, others said they would immediately contact authorities.

"I would call the police and let them know because I am very aware of what goes on around me," said Robbin Delgrande of West Stockbridge.

Sodini had a history of ranting about women and his failed love life online.

Post Your Answers Here

"CUCKOLD CASE" - Testing the Limits of the Internet

A plumber who used the internet to highlight his wife's affair with a director of one of the world's largest financial companies will appear in court on harassment charges. Lawyers believe the case could help define the limits of free expression on the internet.

Ian Puddick, 41, from east London, was incensed after learning that his wife had conducted a 10-year relationship with her boss, a director of Guy Carpenter, a reinsurance company that advises clients on risk management.

Puddick set up a series of websites, a Twitter account and a blog to draw attention to the affair, alleging that the director, who he named, was pursuing an affair with his wife on the company's time and expenses – a claim rejected by Guy Carpenter. The company maintains Puddick's actions forced the director to leave his position due to stress.

Puddick's legal team are expected to use the three-day hearing at Westminster magistrates court to examine the actions of the City of London police, which dispatched its serious crime unit to raid his home and office in search of evidence.

Puddick's legal team is seeking to summon a number of Guy Carpenter's executives to appear at his trial, a move that promises unwanted publicity for a company that likes to keep a relatively low profile. Internal Guy Carpenter emails obtained by Puddick's legal team and seen by the Observer show that the firm employed a subsidiary – Kroll, a global private investigation agency used by many blue chip companies – in its quest to establish that Puddick was waging a harassment campaign.

Kroll briefed Guy Carpenter executives that the police had "offered significant assistance" in dealing with Puddick, whom it believed might be "dangerously unstable". One Kroll director emailed several Guy Carpenter executives on 23 July 2009, following a meeting with City police. "They … warn that the penalties for harassment are not very severe, unless you reoffend, and that the prosecution will be out of our control once the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service agree there is a case to answer. We should remember Puddick may relish the prospect of a day in court."

The email continues: "The civil route has the advantage of us being able to cease the prosecution at any stage, and tougher penalties. However, if the police take this on we can avoid being seen to have any role in prosecuting Puddick, which also has advantages. One way to combine the two may be to talk to Puddick post arrest, and warn him of our options in the civil courts to stop him reoffending."

The case is likely to be watched closely by legal and media experts as the battle to regulate what is disseminated over the internet is waged in the courts. Recent cases involving new media and super-injunctions have also raised questions on whether regulating the net inhibits freedom of speech.

Michael Wolkind QC, representing Puddick, said his client intended to defend his actions. "This case is about Mr Puddick's right to express his feelings about another person's immorality. Ian Puddick dared to speak out about his wife's affair and it has cost the public £1m for the extraordinary investigation carried out by an unusually enthusiastic police alongside an elite security firm."

Puddick's legal team say his home has been burgled and files were stolen as well as some valuables. However, following a police investigation, there is nothing to suggest that Guy Carpenter or Kroll were involved in any illegal activity.

Puddick is now reconciled with his wife.

• This article was amended on 12 June 2011


original article here
As seen in the U.S.A.'s recent First Amendment decision on the Westboro Church ruling, Puddick would be covered by Free Speech in America. As long as one makes no threats or publishes personal information such as phone, address, children, spouse, jobs etc... they are covered in the U.S.A. by the First Amendment.

"CUCKOLD CASE" - Testing the Limits of the Internet

A plumber who used the internet to highlight his wife's affair with a director of one of the world's largest financial companies will appear in court on harassment charges. Lawyers believe the case could help define the limits of free expression on the internet.

Ian Puddick, 41, from east London, was incensed after learning that his wife had conducted a 10-year relationship with her boss, a director of Guy Carpenter, a reinsurance company that advises clients on risk management.

Puddick set up a series of websites, a Twitter account and a blog to draw attention to the affair, alleging that the director, who he named, was pursuing an affair with his wife on the company's time and expenses – a claim rejected by Guy Carpenter. The company maintains Puddick's actions forced the director to leave his position due to stress.

Puddick's legal team are expected to use the three-day hearing at Westminster magistrates court to examine the actions of the City of London police, which dispatched its serious crime unit to raid his home and office in search of evidence.

Puddick's legal team is seeking to summon a number of Guy Carpenter's executives to appear at his trial, a move that promises unwanted publicity for a company that likes to keep a relatively low profile. Internal Guy Carpenter emails obtained by Puddick's legal team and seen by the Observer show that the firm employed a subsidiary – Kroll, a global private investigation agency used by many blue chip companies – in its quest to establish that Puddick was waging a harassment campaign.

Kroll briefed Guy Carpenter executives that the police had "offered significant assistance" in dealing with Puddick, whom it believed might be "dangerously unstable". One Kroll director emailed several Guy Carpenter executives on 23 July 2009, following a meeting with City police. "They … warn that the penalties for harassment are not very severe, unless you reoffend, and that the prosecution will be out of our control once the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service agree there is a case to answer. We should remember Puddick may relish the prospect of a day in court."

The email continues: "The civil route has the advantage of us being able to cease the prosecution at any stage, and tougher penalties. However, if the police take this on we can avoid being seen to have any role in prosecuting Puddick, which also has advantages. One way to combine the two may be to talk to Puddick post arrest, and warn him of our options in the civil courts to stop him reoffending."

The case is likely to be watched closely by legal and media experts as the battle to regulate what is disseminated over the internet is waged in the courts. Recent cases involving new media and super-injunctions have also raised questions on whether regulating the net inhibits freedom of speech.

Michael Wolkind QC, representing Puddick, said his client intended to defend his actions. "This case is about Mr Puddick's right to express his feelings about another person's immorality. Ian Puddick dared to speak out about his wife's affair and it has cost the public £1m for the extraordinary investigation carried out by an unusually enthusiastic police alongside an elite security firm."

Puddick's legal team say his home has been burgled and files were stolen as well as some valuables. However, following a police investigation, there is nothing to suggest that Guy Carpenter or Kroll were involved in any illegal activity.

Puddick is now reconciled with his wife.

• This article was amended on 12 June 2011


original article here
As seen in the U.S.A.'s recent First Amendment decision on the Westboro Church ruling, Puddick would be covered by Free Speech in America. As long as one makes no threats or publishes personal information such as phone, address, children, spouse, jobs etc... they are covered in the U.S.A. by the First Amendment.

Free Speech Is On the Side of Web Postings

Bid To Out Bloggers Dropped

Jennifer Friedlin - Jewish Week Correspondent
(excerpts.... link to full article at the bottom of this post)

A group of anonymous bloggers that had published information on their Web sites about a disgraced Rockland County rabbi's alleged sexual misconduct won a victory when the rabbi withdrew one of two petitions to subpoena their identities.

Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the former leader of Kehillat New Hempstead in New Hempstead, N.Y., who has been accused of sexual harassment by former congregants, filed petitions both in Ohio and California district courts in an effort to force Google, the Internet giant that hosts the bloggers' websites, to disclose their identities.

The bloggers' attorney, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, a Washington-based public interest organization, said Rabbi Tendler’s decision to withdraw the petition represented a victory for the First Amendment right to free speech. He also said that the decision reflected Rabbi Tendler's inability to prove that the bloggers had defamed him.

"If he had had evidence of falsity and malice he could have gone forward against these folks," said Levy, noting that as soon as the bloggers filed their motion claiming that Rabbi Tendler's petition would violate their right to free speech, he withdrew his demand.

Levy said the bloggers were moving ahead with a motion under state law that protects against so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation and would seek to have Rabbi Tendler required to cover the bloggers' legal fees.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to set a federal standard regarding what a defamation plaintiff would have to show before an anonymous blogger could be unmasked, lower court decisions have so far set a high bar, demanding that plaintiffs clearly establish that the claims made against them are false before the online accuser can be outed.

"It's a pretty high standard," said David Hudson, research attorney for the First Amendment Center, an educational organization based in Nashville, Tenn., and Arlington, Va.

While undermining their own credibility, anonymous bloggers may in fact be protecting themselves legally. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, an organization of bloggers, said that one of the standards used in defamation cases is whether a reasonable person would believe a particular statement was true. However, given that blogs are held in lower esteem than many newspapers and magazines, such a standard may not be met in a defamation case against a blogger, particularly an anonymous one.

Cox said that although this issue has yet to be settled in court, bloggers might prove immune to claims of defamation "because nobody believes us."

Widely believed or not, some anonymous bloggers say they are in fact having a great deal of impact and that they plan to continue blogging anonymously.

UOJ says that before he posts any claims against anyone he conducts his own investigation, verifying the allegations with five sources. Once he's satisfied that he has met his own standard, he posts the claims.

(EOPC also investigates to our own standard and anyone who sends us information on their cyberpath must sign a release taking FULL responsibility for the 100% truthfulness of what is told to us & posted.

It is not illegal, nor is it harassment to post the TRUTH about a predatory individual who takes advantage of others via the internet or other means... no matter what these Cyberpaths wish, want or threaten to do.)

"'Free speech' permits me to say 'anything' I feel is accurate," UOJ wrote in an e-mail.

For now, no one is challenging him.

EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE (CLICK HERE)

GOOD INFORMATION ON SAFE BLOGGING

Free Speech Is On the Side of Web Postings

Bid To Out Bloggers Dropped

Jennifer Friedlin - Jewish Week Correspondent
(excerpts.... link to full article at the bottom of this post)

A group of anonymous bloggers that had published information on their Web sites about a disgraced Rockland County rabbi's alleged sexual misconduct won a victory when the rabbi withdrew one of two petitions to subpoena their identities.

Rabbi Mordecai Tendler, the former leader of Kehillat New Hempstead in New Hempstead, N.Y., who has been accused of sexual harassment by former congregants, filed petitions both in Ohio and California district courts in an effort to force Google, the Internet giant that hosts the bloggers' websites, to disclose their identities.

The bloggers' attorney, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, a Washington-based public interest organization, said Rabbi Tendler’s decision to withdraw the petition represented a victory for the First Amendment right to free speech. He also said that the decision reflected Rabbi Tendler's inability to prove that the bloggers had defamed him.

"If he had had evidence of falsity and malice he could have gone forward against these folks," said Levy, noting that as soon as the bloggers filed their motion claiming that Rabbi Tendler's petition would violate their right to free speech, he withdrew his demand.

Levy said the bloggers were moving ahead with a motion under state law that protects against so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation and would seek to have Rabbi Tendler required to cover the bloggers' legal fees.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to set a federal standard regarding what a defamation plaintiff would have to show before an anonymous blogger could be unmasked, lower court decisions have so far set a high bar, demanding that plaintiffs clearly establish that the claims made against them are false before the online accuser can be outed.

"It's a pretty high standard," said David Hudson, research attorney for the First Amendment Center, an educational organization based in Nashville, Tenn., and Arlington, Va.

While undermining their own credibility, anonymous bloggers may in fact be protecting themselves legally. Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, an organization of bloggers, said that one of the standards used in defamation cases is whether a reasonable person would believe a particular statement was true. However, given that blogs are held in lower esteem than many newspapers and magazines, such a standard may not be met in a defamation case against a blogger, particularly an anonymous one.

Cox said that although this issue has yet to be settled in court, bloggers might prove immune to claims of defamation "because nobody believes us."

Widely believed or not, some anonymous bloggers say they are in fact having a great deal of impact and that they plan to continue blogging anonymously.

UOJ says that before he posts any claims against anyone he conducts his own investigation, verifying the allegations with five sources. Once he's satisfied that he has met his own standard, he posts the claims.

(EOPC also investigates to our own standard and anyone who sends us information on their cyberpath must sign a release taking FULL responsibility for the 100% truthfulness of what is told to us & posted.

It is not illegal, nor is it harassment to post the TRUTH about a predatory individual who takes advantage of others via the internet or other means... no matter what these Cyberpaths wish, want or threaten to do.)

"'Free speech' permits me to say 'anything' I feel is accurate," UOJ wrote in an e-mail.

For now, no one is challenging him.

EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE (CLICK HERE)

GOOD INFORMATION ON SAFE BLOGGING

Cyberstalker's Hate Campaign Made Me Live in Terror

A survivor of the July 7 U.K. bombings revealed how she has been subjected to a year-long hate campaign by a "cyberstalker".

Rachel North, 36, who survived the Russell Square Piccadilly line blast which killed 26 people, said she feared for her safety after being bombarded with hundreds of abusive emails.

One accused Miss North, who is leading a campaign pushing for a public inquiry into the London atrocities, of "making a living on the backs of the dead".

Last month, her stalker, Felicity Jane Lowde, 41, who Miss North has never met, was convicted in her absence, of harassment after failing to attend her trial at Stratford Magistrates' Court in East London.

The mother of one is on the run and a warrant has been issued for her arrest.

But despite this, she has continued to subject Miss North, who married last month, to a torrent of warped messages apparently sent from Internet cafes in London.

Last week, Lowde, from Oxford, spent more than an hour firing off a string of messages.

She wrote: "Get lost you justice-perverting bitch.

"You are a warmongering bitch. No one believes you. People hate you for what you've done. Stop trying to promote yourself and go away Rachel.

"Wicked bitch. In your wedding picture you look happy to have got away with it. But time is ticking and you'll wind up in jail with the stupid grin wiped off your evil face."

Another message said: "So happy to grab your man. You're an embarrassment. You have embarrassed all of us.

"Poor deluded sod. I feel sorry for him. Has he any idea what a fool you are making of yourself with your campaigns? You will pay for your actions. You have LIED to us Rachel. LIED."

Miss North survived the 7/7 atrocities three years after she was raped, robbed and left for dead by a stranger who broke into her London flat.

After the terror attacks, she gave up her job in advertising to lead the campaign for a public inquiry.

She described how Lowde began posting abusive comments on her blog in April last year.

Miss North, who has received counselling for post-traumatic stress and survivor guilt, said: "This woman was writing that I should be prosecuted for deserting the dead.

"She asked why I did not stay to help the dying when in fact we had been told to evacuate the carriage.

"At the time I was having nightmares. I would wake up hearing people screaming and think that we had all walked away from the carriage.

"It was relentless psychological warfare. She sent me hundreds of emails and made false accusations about me publicly on her website.

"I have never understood why she has gone for me like this. I find it horrific that a woman could do this to another woman." Miss North said she feared for her safety. " have no idea what she will do next," she added. "I am concerned that she will just turn up at my door.

"I have given her every opportunity to stop. I ignored her at first and then wrote to her asking her to leave me alone. I even offered to have a woman-to-woman chat to her on the phone to sort it out.

"I thought that the trial last month would be the end of it all but now she has gone on the run. I just hope she is caught soon." (note: Lowde was caught and is currently out with a gag-order on her about this case as it is ongoing)

On her internet blog, Lowde - who has a grown-up son - describes herself as a graduate researcher and psychologist.

During the police inquiry, she claimed she was being stalked by Miss North and has vowed to clear her name. (note: THIS IS A TYPICAL PATHOLOGICAL PROJECTION THAT HAS BEEN USED BY OUR EXPOSED CYBERPATHS WHEN THEIR REMORSELESS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN EXPOSED! Count: Beckstead, Jacoby, YidwithLid, Thomas and others in that "boo-hoo I am the victim here" nonsense Cyberpaths feed to law-enforcement!

Sounds a lot like Ed Hicks' "I am writing a tell-all book to get the TRUTH out there."; O.J. Simpson's "looking for the real killer"; Scott Peterson's "I am innocent - everyone takes a boat out on Christmas Day in freezing cold weather to dump a body"; Yidwithlid's whitewashed version of events; and the other Cyberpaths who write us or have their friends write us threatening us if we 'don't remove the slander' or the Psychopath's whose versions of reality are enough to make your head spin.)

A prosecution source said: "What she has said to Rachel is incomprehensible. It beggars belief that someone could be so cruel."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

MORE ON FELICITY JANE LOWDE

FELICITY JANE LOWDE'S VERSION & WEBSITE

Cyberstalker's Hate Campaign Made Me Live in Terror

A survivor of the July 7 U.K. bombings revealed how she has been subjected to a year-long hate campaign by a "cyberstalker".

Rachel North, 36, who survived the Russell Square Piccadilly line blast which killed 26 people, said she feared for her safety after being bombarded with hundreds of abusive emails.

One accused Miss North, who is leading a campaign pushing for a public inquiry into the London atrocities, of "making a living on the backs of the dead".

Last month, her stalker, Felicity Jane Lowde, 41, who Miss North has never met, was convicted in her absence, of harassment after failing to attend her trial at Stratford Magistrates' Court in East London.

The mother of one is on the run and a warrant has been issued for her arrest.

But despite this, she has continued to subject Miss North, who married last month, to a torrent of warped messages apparently sent from Internet cafes in London.

Last week, Lowde, from Oxford, spent more than an hour firing off a string of messages.

She wrote: "Get lost you justice-perverting bitch.

"You are a warmongering bitch. No one believes you. People hate you for what you've done. Stop trying to promote yourself and go away Rachel.

"Wicked bitch. In your wedding picture you look happy to have got away with it. But time is ticking and you'll wind up in jail with the stupid grin wiped off your evil face."

Another message said: "So happy to grab your man. You're an embarrassment. You have embarrassed all of us.

"Poor deluded sod. I feel sorry for him. Has he any idea what a fool you are making of yourself with your campaigns? You will pay for your actions. You have LIED to us Rachel. LIED."

Miss North survived the 7/7 atrocities three years after she was raped, robbed and left for dead by a stranger who broke into her London flat.

After the terror attacks, she gave up her job in advertising to lead the campaign for a public inquiry.

She described how Lowde began posting abusive comments on her blog in April last year.

Miss North, who has received counselling for post-traumatic stress and survivor guilt, said: "This woman was writing that I should be prosecuted for deserting the dead.

"She asked why I did not stay to help the dying when in fact we had been told to evacuate the carriage.

"At the time I was having nightmares. I would wake up hearing people screaming and think that we had all walked away from the carriage.

"It was relentless psychological warfare. She sent me hundreds of emails and made false accusations about me publicly on her website.

"I have never understood why she has gone for me like this. I find it horrific that a woman could do this to another woman." Miss North said she feared for her safety. " have no idea what she will do next," she added. "I am concerned that she will just turn up at my door.

"I have given her every opportunity to stop. I ignored her at first and then wrote to her asking her to leave me alone. I even offered to have a woman-to-woman chat to her on the phone to sort it out.

"I thought that the trial last month would be the end of it all but now she has gone on the run. I just hope she is caught soon." (note: Lowde was caught and is currently out with a gag-order on her about this case as it is ongoing)

On her internet blog, Lowde - who has a grown-up son - describes herself as a graduate researcher and psychologist.

During the police inquiry, she claimed she was being stalked by Miss North and has vowed to clear her name. (note: THIS IS A TYPICAL PATHOLOGICAL PROJECTION THAT HAS BEEN USED BY OUR EXPOSED CYBERPATHS WHEN THEIR REMORSELESS ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN EXPOSED! Count: Beckstead, Jacoby, YidwithLid, Thomas and others in that "boo-hoo I am the victim here" nonsense Cyberpaths feed to law-enforcement!

Sounds a lot like Ed Hicks' "I am writing a tell-all book to get the TRUTH out there."; O.J. Simpson's "looking for the real killer"; Scott Peterson's "I am innocent - everyone takes a boat out on Christmas Day in freezing cold weather to dump a body"; Yidwithlid's whitewashed version of events; and the other Cyberpaths who write us or have their friends write us threatening us if we 'don't remove the slander' or the Psychopath's whose versions of reality are enough to make your head spin.)

A prosecution source said: "What she has said to Rachel is incomprehensible. It beggars belief that someone could be so cruel."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

MORE ON FELICITY JANE LOWDE

FELICITY JANE LOWDE'S VERSION & WEBSITE

THE BLOG OF A PEDOPHILE WHO PREYS ON THE MOMS FIRST!

Parents' Ire Grows at Pedophile's Blog
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

The search for the self-described pedophile in the large-brimmed black hat commences nearly every day here, with findings posted on chat rooms frequented by mothers.
He was spotted at a fair in Santa Clarita. He recently emerged from the Social Security office on Olympic Boulevard. He tapped away on a computer at the library in Mar Vista. Warnings have gone out. Signs have been posted.

And yet unlike convicted sex offenders, who are required to stay away from places that cater to children, in this case the police can do next to nothing, because this man, Jack McClellan, who has had Web sites detailing how and where he likes to troll for children, appears to be doing nothing illegal.

But his mere presence in Los Angeles -- coupled with Mr. McClellan’s commitment to exhibitionistic blogging about his thoughts on little girls -- has set parents on edge. One group of mothers, whose members by and large have never met before, will soon band together in a coffee shop to hammer out plans to push lawmakers in Sacramento to legislate Mr. McClellan out of business.

"Just the idea that this person could get away with what he was doing and no one could press charges has made me angry," said Jane Thompson, a stay-at-home mother in East Los Angeles who recently read Mr. McClellan's comments about a festival in her neighborhood in which he seemed to be describing her child.

Ms. Thompson is part of a movement to make it illegal to post images of children of any type on Web sites with sexual content or themes. "It became what I call a minor obsession of mine for the next six weeks," she said, "to get to know his crowd and the things they talk about."

Two months ago, Mr. McClellan said, he was more or less run out of Washington State, where he lived off and on with his parents, after the news media there and various Web sites drew attention to his activities, making him worry about his safety and that of his family. He had been posting nonsexual pictures of children on a Web site intended to promote the acceptance of pedophiles, and to direct other pedophiles to events and places where children tended to gather.

So he moved to Los Angeles, where he was born, to try to live a Southern California version of his former life. The climate was one draw, said Mr. McClellan in an interview near this reporter's office last week. But also "there are so many world-class children's attractions here, Disneyland, festivals and whatnot."

Mr. McClellan has refrained from posting pictures of children on his Web site, which was shut down by its host several weeks ago but which he intends to start again, he said, with a Dutch host. On the site, he has described fairs, festivals and other spots that he hits at least three days a week, all to the fury of parents.

It is both his actions and inactions that vex law enforcement officials here, who, while suggesting that they keep an eye on Mr. McClellan when they can, say they have no legal recourse against him.

"If you look at things he has posted, he clearly is a pedophile," said Lt. Thomas Sirkel, who works in the Special Victim' Unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

"Has he acted on it? I can't say," Lieutenant Sirkel said. "But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one who has not."

Mr. McClellan, who is 45, refers to himself as a pedophile, but says he has never actually sexually touched a child, simply "embraced them in a nonsexual way, mostly in Latin American countries." He says he has never been convicted of a sex crime, and law enforcement officials in Los Angeles say they know of no convictions.

A check of available public records yielded no criminal history for Mr. McClellan, including under another name he said he used. Mr. McClellan, who said he was adopted, said he changed his name to that of his birth mother several years ago.

Lieutenant Sirkel would not say whether his department had Mr. McClellan under surveillance.

"Why should I tell him about our tactics?" Lieutenant Sirkel said. But he added: "I'd like to know where he is at, what he is doing and watch him awhile. I think he is possibly a dangerous man. In my opinion, he is a threat to children in this community, and people in the community are real concerned about him."

Two Web-based groups, Peachhead, which caters largely to mothers on the West Side of Los Angeles, and Booby Brigade, its counterpart across town, have been abuzz with chatter about "Jack" sightings, and some parents have taken to posting photos of him in parks, downloaded from the Web.

"This one really angered people," said Linda Perry, who runs Peachhead, referring to Mr. McClellan.

Mr. McClellan has been somewhat elusive. He lives largely in his car, he said, although he says he occasionally rents rooms. Asked how he makes a living, he would say only that he lives off of "public assistance, the kind where you're not allowed to work."

The parental reactions somewhat mirror those in the novel and film "Little Children," in which a community becomes enraged at the notion of a convicted sex offender living in their midst, and chase him down at every turn. Although Mr. McClellan is not similarly pursued, parents who recognize him at events often scream at him, he said, and he fears for his safety enough that he would not meet a reporter in a public place.

Law enforcement officials have clearly taken notice -- one mother posted on PeachheadFamilies.com about her husband, a location scout for films, being asked to leave a park where he was using his camera. Mothers from Pasadena to Marina del Rey will soon gather to discuss possible legislative options, Ms. Thompson said.

Theirs will most likely be a difficult road. While posting pictures of children in sexual situations is a felony, posting them fully clothed in everyday situations is not, even in the context of sexualizing them by proxy, so to speak, First Amendment scholars said. Further, while inciting others to commit crimes can be illegal, it is unclear whether giving people links to children's book fairs is criminal.

"It is an interesting case," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor and First Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Professor Volokh cited a federal statute that bars the posting of bomb-making information on the Web, and suggested that a similar statute banning information that helps people find children to molest could be enacted, perhaps. But simply providing information about where children gather was not likely to constitute such a crime, he said.

In terms of children's images, he said: "The general rule is pictures of people in public are free for people to publish. Now if it is without permission and the person is a child and he suggests the children are sexual targets, you can imagine a court saying this is a new First Amendment exception. But it would be an uphill battle."

So for now, then, many Angelenos will continue to track and record Mr. McClellan's every move. Ms. Perry of Peachhead noted that the city was full of convicted child molesters.

"At least we know who he is and what he looks like," she said.

Alain Delaquérière contributed reporting from New York.

THE BLOG OF A PEDOPHILE WHO PREYS ON THE MOMS FIRST!

Parents' Ire Grows at Pedophile's Blog
By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

The search for the self-described pedophile in the large-brimmed black hat commences nearly every day here, with findings posted on chat rooms frequented by mothers.
He was spotted at a fair in Santa Clarita. He recently emerged from the Social Security office on Olympic Boulevard. He tapped away on a computer at the library in Mar Vista. Warnings have gone out. Signs have been posted.

And yet unlike convicted sex offenders, who are required to stay away from places that cater to children, in this case the police can do next to nothing, because this man, Jack McClellan, who has had Web sites detailing how and where he likes to troll for children, appears to be doing nothing illegal.

But his mere presence in Los Angeles -- coupled with Mr. McClellan’s commitment to exhibitionistic blogging about his thoughts on little girls -- has set parents on edge. One group of mothers, whose members by and large have never met before, will soon band together in a coffee shop to hammer out plans to push lawmakers in Sacramento to legislate Mr. McClellan out of business.

"Just the idea that this person could get away with what he was doing and no one could press charges has made me angry," said Jane Thompson, a stay-at-home mother in East Los Angeles who recently read Mr. McClellan's comments about a festival in her neighborhood in which he seemed to be describing her child.

Ms. Thompson is part of a movement to make it illegal to post images of children of any type on Web sites with sexual content or themes. "It became what I call a minor obsession of mine for the next six weeks," she said, "to get to know his crowd and the things they talk about."

Two months ago, Mr. McClellan said, he was more or less run out of Washington State, where he lived off and on with his parents, after the news media there and various Web sites drew attention to his activities, making him worry about his safety and that of his family. He had been posting nonsexual pictures of children on a Web site intended to promote the acceptance of pedophiles, and to direct other pedophiles to events and places where children tended to gather.

So he moved to Los Angeles, where he was born, to try to live a Southern California version of his former life. The climate was one draw, said Mr. McClellan in an interview near this reporter's office last week. But also "there are so many world-class children's attractions here, Disneyland, festivals and whatnot."

Mr. McClellan has refrained from posting pictures of children on his Web site, which was shut down by its host several weeks ago but which he intends to start again, he said, with a Dutch host. On the site, he has described fairs, festivals and other spots that he hits at least three days a week, all to the fury of parents.

It is both his actions and inactions that vex law enforcement officials here, who, while suggesting that they keep an eye on Mr. McClellan when they can, say they have no legal recourse against him.

"If you look at things he has posted, he clearly is a pedophile," said Lt. Thomas Sirkel, who works in the Special Victim' Unit of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

"Has he acted on it? I can't say," Lieutenant Sirkel said. "But I've been in this business for 20 years, and I have never seen one who has not."

Mr. McClellan, who is 45, refers to himself as a pedophile, but says he has never actually sexually touched a child, simply "embraced them in a nonsexual way, mostly in Latin American countries." He says he has never been convicted of a sex crime, and law enforcement officials in Los Angeles say they know of no convictions.

A check of available public records yielded no criminal history for Mr. McClellan, including under another name he said he used. Mr. McClellan, who said he was adopted, said he changed his name to that of his birth mother several years ago.

Lieutenant Sirkel would not say whether his department had Mr. McClellan under surveillance.

"Why should I tell him about our tactics?" Lieutenant Sirkel said. But he added: "I'd like to know where he is at, what he is doing and watch him awhile. I think he is possibly a dangerous man. In my opinion, he is a threat to children in this community, and people in the community are real concerned about him."

Two Web-based groups, Peachhead, which caters largely to mothers on the West Side of Los Angeles, and Booby Brigade, its counterpart across town, have been abuzz with chatter about "Jack" sightings, and some parents have taken to posting photos of him in parks, downloaded from the Web.

"This one really angered people," said Linda Perry, who runs Peachhead, referring to Mr. McClellan.

Mr. McClellan has been somewhat elusive. He lives largely in his car, he said, although he says he occasionally rents rooms. Asked how he makes a living, he would say only that he lives off of "public assistance, the kind where you're not allowed to work."

The parental reactions somewhat mirror those in the novel and film "Little Children," in which a community becomes enraged at the notion of a convicted sex offender living in their midst, and chase him down at every turn. Although Mr. McClellan is not similarly pursued, parents who recognize him at events often scream at him, he said, and he fears for his safety enough that he would not meet a reporter in a public place.

Law enforcement officials have clearly taken notice -- one mother posted on PeachheadFamilies.com about her husband, a location scout for films, being asked to leave a park where he was using his camera. Mothers from Pasadena to Marina del Rey will soon gather to discuss possible legislative options, Ms. Thompson said.

Theirs will most likely be a difficult road. While posting pictures of children in sexual situations is a felony, posting them fully clothed in everyday situations is not, even in the context of sexualizing them by proxy, so to speak, First Amendment scholars said. Further, while inciting others to commit crimes can be illegal, it is unclear whether giving people links to children's book fairs is criminal.

"It is an interesting case," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor and First Amendment expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Professor Volokh cited a federal statute that bars the posting of bomb-making information on the Web, and suggested that a similar statute banning information that helps people find children to molest could be enacted, perhaps. But simply providing information about where children gather was not likely to constitute such a crime, he said.

In terms of children's images, he said: "The general rule is pictures of people in public are free for people to publish. Now if it is without permission and the person is a child and he suggests the children are sexual targets, you can imagine a court saying this is a new First Amendment exception. But it would be an uphill battle."

So for now, then, many Angelenos will continue to track and record Mr. McClellan's every move. Ms. Perry of Peachhead noted that the city was full of convicted child molesters.

"At least we know who he is and what he looks like," she said.

Alain Delaquérière contributed reporting from New York.