FREE SPEECH -- CNET News reports that the California Court of Appeal has upheld a court order to a self-described girl lover with no criminal record to cease posting images of young girls on a website, even if the photographs were taken in public places. Concluding that Jack McClellan had no First Amendment right to place the photos as exhibits in his own pedophilic fantasies, the court's January 15 opinion stated in part:

Publications, even if true, may constitute an invasion of privacy if they are presented in a lurid or indecent manner. Even if photographs are accurate and taken in public places, there can be a cause of action for invasion of privacy when they are exploitative . . .
    For example, in Gill v. Curtis Publishing Co., a happily married couple was photographed in an affectionate pose when they were at their place of business. A magazine used the photograph in an article on different types of love as an example of mere sexual attraction. The California Supreme Court examined the context in which the article was used. The Court held that even though the couple had been in a public place when the photograph was taken, the plaintiffs had stated a cause of action because the use of the photograph could be actionable as an invasion of privacy . . .
    McClellan states that his activities are not illegal. For example, he states that attending public events is not illegal, publishing photographs is permissible, and engaging in public advocacy for those attracted to prepubescent girls is legal. McClellan misses the point.
    McClellan is not prohibited from espousing his controversial views. Rather, he is prohibited from his continuing course of conduct to harass, attack, assault, stalk, and keep under surveillance minor children, as to do so places the children in danger and is threatening to them. McClellan is not prohibited from attending public events, but rather only prohibited from being within 10 yards of any place where children congregate. He is prohibited from tracking young girls by obtaining their addresses or locations so he can post their photographs on his website and he is precluded from recording or publishing any image of any minor child without the parent or guardian's written consent. The prohibited activities are offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities and threatening. The photographs he posts are not part of a discussion of newsworthy events . . .
    He also presents the children in a false light because the photographs portray the children as being available to pedophiles. The voyeur and stalking nature of McClellan's activities, and his attendance at functions where children congregate, in conjunction with his use of photographs of small children is offensive, frightening, menancing, and not protected by McClellan's free speech or assembly rights.             Although McClellan states that he is being punished for his thoughts and the hostile reaction to them, he ignores the response to the victims of his actions who fear for their safety.
    Further, the protective order did not preclude McClellan from associating with other persons who share his beliefs or with other pedophiles. He is not prevented from discussing his beliefs with others or expressing those beliefs . . .The restraining order and judgment of permanent injunction are affirmed.