Update: LA's pedo blogger

Darn it. I wrote out a post - and it was eaten by the internet monsters.

If you read my post titled "low tech solution to a high tech problem" -- or if you follow this sort of thing in the media - you know that LA has a blogger who likes to muse about his sexualized ideas about little girls as well as post pictures he takes of children around LA and places other creepy guys can find groups of children. Although he's pushed the boundaries of good taste and citizenship, he hasn't ACTUALLY committed a crime - yet.

A judge issued a restraining order banning him from coming within 30 feet of children or posting pictures of children without express permission from their parents. Folks who know say that it pretty much guaranteed that he would get arrested because it is impossible to stay that far away from all children. You can't even make a middle of the night run to the store for oreos without some parent bringing their child in the store.

Well, he's been arrested. But, he really was just asking for the attention, it would seem. He was arrested on the UCLA campus, outside a building that houses a day care, with a camera. He was then issued a restraining order banning him from campus (which is an appropriate measure for college campuses - especially in the wake of the VT shooting - he had no legitimate reason for being on campus, and posed a threat to members of the campus community). A short time later, police saw him doing a live news interview from a parking lot on campus. He was arrested again, and now has a decent bond. (there is an article from NYT linked to the title of this post)

It would seem that he wanted to get arrested. But, why? is he planning on making some big point about thought police and over a zealous legal system? Is there a better internet hook up in jail? Was living in his car getting to be too hard? Or is he gearing up for some law suit that will set him up for life?

But, if you were on a jury - who would you want to be sympathetic to - the creepy guy who just skirted the law but made a whole lot of parents anxious and possibly led other more creepy guys to find new access to children? Or the parent whose child was featured on this guy's web site with his creepy commentary?

I think it would be pretty easy to see what this guy is doing as a form of domestic terrorism.