[one of His mysterious ways]

He gets away with photographing children without their knowledge or consent; and posting their pictures on websites while TV and newspapers must get a consent form signed by the parent or legal guardian before taking pictures of any child and posting them. Yet he considers it illegal if someone does the same thing to him. Here is a comment from his own website...

“Members of the media and other uninvited people on my property may be photographed and charged with trespassing. Members of the media and other people who follow me or my relatives may be photographed and charged under Washington’s felony stalking law.”

Can you believe it? According to this, it is illegal for anyone to follow or take pictures of this psychopath; while it is perfectly legal and protected for him to do the same thing to one/many of our children and then to post the pics for other pedophiles to view.

Laws need to be changed in every state to address and correct this hypocracy and protect our children!

[AngelesCrestHighway]

Exactly!...It’s unbelievable to me. His rights as a pervert have more weight than a childs right to be protected from him?

[JamesP81]

Can you believe it? According to this, it is illegal for anyone to follow or take pictures of this psychopath; while it is perfectly legal and protected for him to do the same thing to one/many of our children and then to post the pics for other pedophiles to view.

The way he gets away with it is the part about trespassing on his own private property, but he's taking his photos in public. Unfortunately, I think his general interpretation of the law is more or less accurate, but this doesn't deal with the fact that it's conspiracy to build a website to help people commit felonies. I don't know why he hasn't already been charged. You can't go around helping people do illegal things. Not to mention the whole thing about photographing minors. I thought that was illegal too.

Washington state needs to get its head out of its posterior and get to work.

[Designer]

"TV and newspapers must get a consent form signed by the parent or legal guardian before taking pictures of any child and posting them."

No, they don't.

Happened to us once, and the newspaper told me they don't need permission, as long as the subjects are in a public setting.

[ReignOfError]

>I>He gets away with photographing children without their knowledge or consent; and posting their pictures on websites while TV and newspapers must get a consent form signed by the parent or legal guardian before taking pictures of any child and posting them.

Newspapers ant TV stations use pictures of kids without releases all the time -- festivals in the park, first day of school, that kind of thing. They're generally careful to use wide shots and steer clear of identifiable pictures of individual kids. They do get releases of identifiable kids, especially if they interview them, but I'm not sure if that's required by law or is a widely-accepted ethical standard.

I looked at McClellan's site. It's profoundly creepy. What I did not see is what the story describes -- photographs of girls with or without personal information. I suspect McClellan consulted a lawyer and took those down. If the description in the story is accurate, then McClellan may have broken laws against invasion of privacy, possibly even stalking. And if anyone who read his site approached, harassed, or God forbid molested a young girl based on the information on his site, he could be on the hook for incitement or facilitation.

But in the absence of an actual crime, what I see on the site -- repeating that the content mentioned in the OP might have since been removed -- falls within first amendment territory. The best response would be to see to it that as many parents as possible know this creep's face, and post a gallery of pictures of him taking his pictures. And be ready to pounce if he posts any.