Julie Amero Porn Case - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Xazy · 02-28-2007, 04:44 AM

I have read several articles about this case and the more I read the mroe scared I get. It seems that the police and DA office just do not understand technology enough, and this is a perfect example causing a travisty of justice.

USA TODAY Article

Quote:

Police, school get failing grade in sad case of Julie Amero

Imagine you know next to nothing about computers. You're a substitute teacher for a seventh grade class. There's a computer in the classroom and, knowing you're going to be sitting there for a while, you ask a fulltime teacher if you can use it. He logs you in with his password and tells you not to shut it off because you couldn't get back on.

Not that you have a clue about this stuff, but that computer is running Windows 98 and the outdated Internet Explorer 6.02. Its filtering and anti-virus software have expired, and it has no anti-spyware software.

You step out of the classroom for a moment. When you get back the kids are clustered around the computer, checking out hairstyle websites. But one is actually a link to porn sites, and it loads a Trojan onto the unprotected computer.

Suddenly, pop-ups start appearing — X-rated popups.

You start to panic. You're not supposed to shut the machine and you don't realize you can just shut the monitor. You try to block the screen, but — like normal seventh graders — the kids are curious and pushy.

You run to the teacher's lounge for help. Finally you get some and the crisis ends. But the kids have seen the porn. They tell their parents. The parents tell the school.

You tell the school administrators what happened, but they don't bother (or don't know how) to check the computer for the adware you described. Instead they fire you.

And soon you're arrested and charged with four counts of "risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child." You're facing 40 years in prison.

Welcome to the nightmare of Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher in Norwich, Conn. That's what she says happened to her at the hands of the technologically illiterate Kelly Middle School, technologically illiterate police, a technologically illiterate prosecutor, and a technologically illiterate jury.

If her life hadn't been effectively destroyed by this farce of justice, it would almost be comical. But it's not.

If you've ever seen a completely unprotected computer suddenly have a pile of adware come to life, it can be a sight to behold. Windows appearing on top of one another pell-mell; closing one only brings more.

(Want to try it for yourself? Turn off all your computer's protection and visit new-hair-styles.com, the site the kids were checking out when all this started. See how fast your PC is infected. On second thought, don't.)

Weeks later, with leisure time and 20/20 hindsight, officials came up with all the things Amero should have done. Of course, they didn't have to contend with the panic and shock of seeing random pictures popping up on an unfamiliar machine, and of 12-year olds pushing to try to see more.

She should have shut off the computer, they said. But Amero was told specifically not to do that. And, like a lot of people, I suspect, didn't realize she could turn off the monitor.

Amero was at the mercy of a machine that the school's negligence left unprotected.

Rather than admit that negligence, though, officials declared that Amero had deliberately been visiting porn sites.

Which of these scenarios makes more sense to you?

Scenario A: In the middle of class, a substitute teacher decided to surf for thumbnail-size porn images (an analysis of the hard drive showed that's all that ever appeared on the screen — tiny pictures).

Scenario B: A classroom computer running Windows 98 with outdated anti-virus software, no Internet filter, and no anti-spyware software began displaying popups after some kids visited the wrong site.

Assistant State's Attorney David Smith believed Scenario A, despite the ease of verifying Scenario B by checking the computer for adware and Trojans.

The school and the prosecutor declined to do that. Amero called an expert, one W. Herbert Horner. He confirmed everything she said: The computer was infected before she got there, a site visited that morning caused the pop-ups to start, and the porn was the result of pop-ups, not deliberate action.

But the judge refused to let Horner offer all his evidence.

Horner later wrote, "This was one of the most frustrating experiences of my career, knowing full well that the person is innocent and not being allowed to provide logical proof.

"If there is an appeal and the defense is allowed to show the entire results of the forensic examination in front of experienced computer people, including a computer literate judge and prosecutor, Julie Amero will walk out the court room as a free person."

For his part, the prosecution's computer "expert," Norwich Police Detective Mark Lounsbury, testified that the computer logged deliberate visits to porn sites. Had Lounsbury actually been an expert, he would have known that a browser's log doesn't record whether a site came up because you clicked on something or because adware opened the link.

But a tech-illiterate jury didn't have the benefit of an expert's testimony. They convicted her.

One juror told PC World columnist Steve Bass, "If a 40-year-old school teacher does not have the sense to turn off or is not smart enough to figure it out, would you or any other person wanting her teaching your child or grandchild?"

Thus according to that jury, "not having the sense to turn off a computer" is a multi-count felony punishable by 40 years in prison. Wow.

The parents of the kids in Kelly Middle School should be demanding that school official explain why they let its Internet filter expire, why no one bothered to update the anti-virus protection, and why no one took the time to install free anti-adware software.

Julie Amero was a victim of a school that couldn't be bothered to protect its computers, of a prosecutor without the technology background to understand what he was doing, a police "expert" who was not, and a jury misled by all of them. "Miscarriage of justice" doesn't begin to describe it.

The_Jazz · 02-28-2007, 05:50 AM

I've got to say that this makes the people of the great state of Connecticut look pretty dumb. Obviously (at least to me), the teacher should have shut down the monitor immediately, but I can't believe that there isn't someone in the system that tech-savvy enough to recognize what actually happened.

Then again, maybe there is actually something to the prosecution's case that the reporter neglected to mention. It wouldn't be the first time.

flstf · 02-28-2007, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Then again, maybe there is actually something to the prosecution's case that the reporter neglected to mention. It wouldn't be the first time.

Whenever I read of cases like this I have to think that there is more to the story. Why in the world would anyone want to send a teacher to jail for unintentionally allowing porn popups to appear in class? Even if she did it intentionally the most she should get is fired. Apparently there is a law on the books making it illegal to corrupt the morals of a minor, but 40 years is ridiculous. The effort to protect children with these kinds of laws seems to go way overboard.

Perhaps the police, judge, jury and school administrators are really that stupid. Also why would the judge not allow her computer expert to offer his evidence. According to Herbert Horner he went to court prepared to demonstrate online how the popups occured but was denied when the prosecution objected because they were not given full disclosure beforehand.

Jinn · 02-28-2007, 07:55 AM

Man that was a fair-and-balanced news story if I've ever seen one. I can't jump on the "HOW RIDICULOUS" bandwagon until I see coverage of this story that isn't full of emotional appeal and entirely one-sided.

Bill O'Rights · 02-28-2007, 08:18 AM

I want to believe this story...as it is written. I really do...

But...I have a hard time accepting the fact that there is that much stupidity, ignorance, and/or corruption...on so many levels and layers.

I'm thinking that there has to be more to this, that we are not shown. At least I sure as hell hope that there is. Otherwise, this is the absolute worst beakdown of the judicial system, that I've seen, since I changed my stance on Capital Punishment.

Who wants to go check on the flip side of this story?

ngdawg · 02-28-2007, 08:21 AM

If she doesn't know about how things work, why did she ask to use it?
Unfortunately, stupidity is a crime in this country, unless you're sitting on a jury or a Board of Ed..

I'd fully assume she'll appeal this. The charges alone were dumb enough, but 40 years? She should have plied them with weed and booze, she'd have gotten less time

Wow....I Googled her name to get more information on this case....
The tech world is aghast and can't say I don't blame them. It appears that the 'computer crimes' detective doesn't know squat about the internet, spyware, etc., yet his testimony was allowed, most of Horner's(an expert for 40 years) was not. Of the 8 kids who testified for the prosecution, not one pointed out who first got to the computer when Amero stepped out and, in fact, not one could identify Amero as the teacher for that day.
The computer in question, nor the school network, was investigated or searched for histories other than what was 'clicked on' the day in question.(In the sites I perused, it was explained that this spyware would not have to be 'clicked on' anyway-that fact was not presented at trial).
There was no mention of the regular teacher testifying as to what he has 'clicked on'.
The superintendent's take on this? "She was supposed to teach the children-this did not happen" Yea, so let's throw her into prison for it.

jorgelito · 02-28-2007, 09:47 AM

I'm with Jinn Kai - that was quite possibly the most biased and one-sided article I have ever read.

That said, assuming what the article says is ture then I am dumbfounded. It seems like quite the travesty of justice. I too have a hard time believing that failure or incompetency could have occurred on so many levels,but it is possible. If and when the facts do come out, hopefully we will know what really did happen.

Xazy · 02-28-2007, 09:49 AM

Here is another article that covers the case a drop more

PC World

Quote:

Teacher Faces Prison for Pop-Up Infested PC
Crazy, but true: Woman convicted of exposing minors to porn, could serve 40 years

Have you ever faced a pop-up that wouldn't go away? You try clicking it closed and another pops up in less than a nanosecond. You reboot the system, annoyed that your anti-spyware program let something slip through.

That's a hassle, sure--but chances are, your experience won't land you in jail.
A Teacher's Worst Nightmare

Julie Amero, a substitute teacher in Norwich, Connecticut, has been convicted of impairing the morals of a child and risking injury to a minor by exposing as many as ten seventh-grade students to porn sites.

It's a short story: On October, 19, 2004, Amero was a substitute teacher for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School. A few students were crowded around a PC; some were giggling. She investigated and saw the kids looking at a barrage of graphic, hard-core pornographic pop-ups.

The prosecution contended that she had used the computer to visit porn sites.

The defense said that wasn't true and argued that the machine was infested with spyware and malware, and that opening the browser caused the computer to go into an endless loop of pop-ups leading to porn sites.

Amero maintains her innocence. She refused offers of a plea bargain and now faces an astounding 40 years in prison (her sentencing is on March 2).
Just the Facts

I'll admit all my don't haves right away: I don't have access to court records; I don't have first-hand evidence of what occurred; and I haven't examined the computer's hard drive myself.

What I do have is a working knowledge of spyware and plenty of experience cleaning infected PCs.

I also have a copy of the report written by computer forensic specialist W. Herbert Horner, the expert witness who testified in Amero's defense. You can read it, too; it's on the NetQos site.
Proof, Speculation, and a Not-Very-Good Defense

Horner made an image of the computer's hard drive. He saw that there was no firewall and that the antivirus program was outdated. He also found 42 active "spyware/adware tracking cookie/programs." Most important, Horner said that 27 of the spyware apps were accessed before Amero had access to the computer.

To me, the implication is clear that Amero hadn't used the PC for browse for porn, as the prosecution claimed.

The defense wanted Horner to have Internet access at the trial in order to re-create what happened to Amero in the classroom. The prosecution objected, claiming they hadn't had ?full disclosure? of Horner's examination.

In my opinion, had the defense attorney been on his toes, and had the jury seen the demonstration, Amero would have been found innocent.
Guilty: The School or the Teacher?

The question is, Who should be held responsible? After reading articles in the Norwich Bulletin, the area's local newspaper, and a chat with someone familiar with the case, I've come to some conclusions. (And if you've ever helped a computer novice deal with a PC loaded with spyware, I think you know who I'm siding with.)

First, it would be a good idea to take a look at newspaper articles covering the trial. Read the January 5, 2007 article, the next on January 7, and the January 11 editorial supporting the conviction.

Now, back to our story. To begin with, the prosecutor pointed his finger at Amero because she didn't turn off the computer right away.

If I faced the same situation, I'd probably panic, just as Amero did--shield the kids from seeing the monitor and move them away from the computer. Then I'd reach over to an unfamiliar system, fumble around looking for the Off switch, and turn off the monitor, or computer, or both.

I imagine Amero was also flustered because she was told by the class's regular teacher, quite adamantly, not to turn off the computer. That's a lame excuse, I agree, because questioning authority is sometimes the right thing to do.

But I've learned from my source that Amero is a rank novice. About the most she can do is check e-mail on AOL using her husband's home computer. That says lots, no?

For instance, when faced with the classroom PC's pop-ups, her reaction was to click the red "x" in the corner of each box--which, as anyone who's faced spyware knows, often results in another pop-up.

More important, though, if the school had done its part in protecting its students, it would have up-to-date anti-spyware and antivirus programs installed on every PC.

On January 24 the Norwich Bulletin reported that the school district's technology administrator, Information Services Director Bob Hartz, said, "from August to October 2004, the district's filtering system didn't regularly add newly discovered pornographic sites to its restricted Web sites database." Oddly enough, they upgraded the software just after Amero's incident.

In my opinion, Amero is the victim here.

The blogsphere has been following the story carefully, though the mainstream media hasn't picked it up yet. My guess is when it does, the bits will hit the fan.

Sorry i did not want to post a dozen articles, but this one shows a bit more facts of the case.

SecretMethod70 · 02-28-2007, 10:12 AM

This case has been going on for awhile and, sadly, there's really not much more to the story. The situation really is that ridiculous. Unfortunately, I don't have much else to say other than that. I hope her case gets resolved in a more reasonable fashion.

Regina Lynn of Wired News wrote an excellent article on this topic which I think is worth sharing:

Quote:

Protect the Children From Porn click to show

Tech-savvy lawyers are pointing out glaring technological and legal errors made by both sides of the case. Computer forensics researchers have been re-creating the incident, using a disk image of the classroom machine, to show how insidious pop-up porn can be. SecurityFocus columnist Mark Rasch published a 6,200-word analysis exposing the basic tech ignorance of just about everyone involved: the police detective who performed the forensic analysis, the state's attorney, the defense attorney, the jury, the school administrators, the school IT department and Julie herself.

Julie is taking the fall, but many other people failed before a porn storm burst into that classroom.

The IT department failed to keep content filters and anti-malware software up-to-date. The school failed to enforce a security policy, allowing substitute teachers to use regular teachers' network credentials to access the internet. The administration failed to ensure that all teachers, including substitutes, had the necessary skills and training to handle internet surprises -- and the savvy to respond quickly in a crisis.

politicophile · 02-28-2007, 10:40 AM

Link

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary Landesman

...Under Section 53-21 of Connecticut law, "Any person who . . . wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired . . . shall be punished. The intent of the statute is to protect the physical health, morals and well-being of children." The law also provides that "the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that at the time of the incident, the alleged victim was under the age of sixteen years; and (2) that the defendant wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted the victim to be placed in a situation that endangered the child's life or limb, or was likely to injure his health or impair his morals."

The kids in this case were 7th graders, so there is no doubt as to the 'under the age of sixteen years' mandate. And the law further clarifies willful or unlawful behavior as "the conduct of a person that is deliberately indifferent to, acquiesces in, or creates a situation inimical to the child's moral or physical welfare". The legal documents further define that "'Wilfully' means intentionally or deliberately. 'Unlawfully' means without legal right or justification. Causing or permitting a situation to arise within the meaning of this statute requires conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."

That last bit is pretty explicit: "conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."

Remember, Amero did not make any attempt to turn off the computer, even knowing that "the computer was completely covered with pornography" and even knowing that the kids in the classroom could see it.

As for the "likely to injure his health or impair his morals" part of the law, this is further defined within the legal statute as "'Likely'' means in all probability or probably. As used here, ''morals'' means good morals, living, acting and thinking in accordance with those principles and precepts that are commonly accepted among us as right and decent."

Amero did not respond in court when asked why she didn't turn off the computer. But allegedly she had been told during substitute training or at some other point prior to the incident that she was not to turn off any equipment in the classroom. If a librarian had been told not to remove books from the library, and then subsequently Larry Flint dropped a truckload of Hustler magazines in the children's center, shouldn't the librarian's good judgment prevail and the magazines be removed? I think yes.

The Amero case isn't about adware. It's about poor judgement and doing nothing when minors under her care were placed in harm's way. And in Connecticut, that's against the law.

I was hoping to find some lawyerly commentary on the situation, but this way the best I came across. Upon analysis of the statute, as it was written on the books, this looks more like a case of unjust laws than of a bad juridical process. I especially like the analogy I've included above. It's always difficult to say how you would have reacted in the situation, but was it really that unreasonable to hold Amero at fault for not shutting off or unplugging the computer? No computer skills are required for that.

jorgelito · 02-28-2007, 10:46 AM

Maybe not but does the "punishment" really fit the "crime"?

Bill O'Rights · 02-28-2007, 10:52 AM

Well...at this point...not knowing anymore than what we do...I'm still not convinced that a crime was even commited.

Sure...it's easy to say that she should have unplugged it. She should have unplugged it. But...she panicked. I can see that. I've been in situations where I've panicked and not taken the obvious next step.

That mistake's not worth the next 40 years of her life.

politicophile · 02-28-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Maybe not but does the "punishment" really fit the "crime"?

Absolutely not. As I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Politicophile

...this looks more like a case of unjust laws than of a bad juridical process.

My point here is that I believe the judge, prosecutor, and jury all enforced the law in accordance with how it is written. Yes, they excluded a witness whose testimony had not undergone the necessary discovery. Yes, the people involved in the trial were not computer literate. Yes, 40 years in prison is an absurd sentence for this crime.

BUT, I believe Amero failed to do everything within reason to prevent the children from seeing pornography. She was negligent and her conviction was therefore justified. Am I reading this correctly when I see that she actually hasn't been sentenced yet and that the maximum possible penalty is 40 years?

SecretMethod70 · 02-28-2007, 11:06 AM

Yes, she hasn't been sentenced yet. She got a new lawyer from a big law firm who has taken on her case pro bono and he asked for the sentencing hearing to be postponed.

jorgelito · 02-28-2007, 11:25 AM

Hmmm...but is it too late? I mean, if they are already at sentencing the it is essentially at the end of the process?
I understand that the players involved followed the letter of the law but isn't there some kind of discretion involved? Judges have been waaaayy lenient on others for far worse crimes. Violent athletes and celebrities come to mind.

KnifeMissile · 02-28-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

BUT, I believe Amero failed to do everything within reason to prevent the children from seeing pornography. She was negligent and her conviction was therefore justified. Am I reading this correctly when I see that she actually hasn't been sentenced yet and that the maximum possible penalty is 40 years?

I suppose that's the real point of the case, "within reason."

Pesonally, I think it's unreasonable for anyone to be that "computer illiterate." Operating a computer is easier than driving and I'm rather confident that she can drive...

People in the latter part of this thread have been saying that she should have turned off the computer. Hasn't it been established that she was told by someone of authority and pervieved exptertise that she should not turn off the computer? My understanding is that she wanted to turn it off but was instructed not to. If she is as computer illiterate as people are saying, she didn't know enough to do so...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Hmmm...but is it too late? I mean, if they are already at sentencing the it is essentially at the end of the process?
I understand that the players involved followed the letter of the law but isn't there some kind of discretion involved? Judges have been waaaayy lenient on others for far worse crimes. Violent athletes and celebrities come to mind.

There is discretion. They can still give her a light sentence (although it doesn't look like they'll do so) and she can still appeal the decision.

I wonder how she'll feel about computers after this whole ordeal and whether it will motivate her to learn a little more about them...

kutulu · 02-28-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

My point here is that I believe the judge, prosecutor, and jury all enforced the law in accordance with how it is written.

I guess I would hope that our competent judges would be able to look at a case like this and dismiss it on the grounds that the lady is a complete idiot but never intentionally did anything that could harm the kids. It makes sense to me but I think plenty of people would get their panties in a bunch, calling it 'judicial activism' or something like that.

The problem is that the players involved: the school, cops, DA, and judge are more concerned with how this case will affect their careers than doing the right thing. A savy jury would have nullified the case (of course the prosecution probably would kick the jury members out for even mentioning that).

Sweetpea · 02-28-2007, 12:17 PM

this will obviously be appealed.

but it's pretty damn crazy...

Val_1 · 02-28-2007, 07:09 PM

Not allowing an expert witness is unforgivable, especially in a case involving technology. They ONLY reason I can see to not allow the expert witness is because she was being railroaded.

Quote:

<i> Originally Posted by Mary Landesman
...Under Section 53-21 of Connecticut law, "Any person who . . . wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired . . . shall be punished.</i>

Willfully I understand. That's intent, which is what the law should be about. But "or unlawfully"? How can the law that's defining what's legal use the word "unlawfully". That's like using a word to define the word.

politicophile · 02-28-2007, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I guess I would hope that our competent judges would be able to look at a case like this and dismiss it on the grounds that the lady is a complete idiot but never intentionally did anything that could harm the kids. It makes sense to me but I think plenty of people would get their panties in a bunch, calling it 'judicial activism' or something like that.

The problem is that the players involved: the school, cops, DA, and judge are more concerned with how this case will affect their careers than doing the right thing. A savy jury would have nullified the case (of course the prosecution probably would kick the jury members out for even mentioning that).

Hmmm. The statute isn't looking for intentionality, per se. I'll do my best from my non-legal background to sketch out my argument for her conviction. The quotes I'm using are from the article I posted above:

In order to convict her, "the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that at the time of the incident, the alleged victim was under the age of sixteen years; and (2) that the defendant wilfully or unlawfully caused or permitted the victim to be placed in a situation that endangered the child's life or limb, or was likely to injure his health or impair his morals."

(1) has obviously been proven, so we'll move on.

(2) I think exposure to pornography would count as a situation that "was likely to... impair [the child's] morals." Debatable, perhaps, but it's certainly a fair reading of the law to conclude that children are harmed by viewing pornography.

The tricky question, then, is whether or not the exposure was "[willful] or [unlawful]" under the terms of the law.

"Willful or unlawful" behavior is defined as "the conduct of a person that is deliberately indifferent to, acquiesces in, or creates a situation inimical to the child's moral or physical welfare".

"'Wilfully' means intentionally or deliberately. 'Unlawfully' means without legal right or justification. Causing or permitting a situation to arise within the meaning of this statute requires conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."

Since the phrase is "willfully or unlawfully", the government needs prove only one of the two beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, Amero's negligent behavior qualifies as "the conduct of a person that... creates a situation inimical to the child's moral... welfare." Also, that last part, "that the defendant might have reasonably prevented [the bad situation]", certainly rings true in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong: this is not a slam-dunk case for the prosecution, but the actions of the judge, jury, prosecutors, ect. do not seem in any way to be unreasonable. Their side seems quite logical to me.

One final note: 40 years is a ridiculous sentence for this particular crime. Any reasonable person would agree with that, I think. As has been mentioned, however, she has yet to be sentenced. I don't know what the minimum sentence is, if there even is a minimum, but this woman is going to get a lot less than 40 years even if she doesn't win her appeal. The 40 year sentence is for severe child abuse/neglect, not this mildly harmful sort of negligence. If she got, say, six months in jail for this offense, would anyone have a problem with it?

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Val_1

Not allowing an expert witness is unforgivable, especially in a case involving technology. They ONLY reason I can see to not allow the expert witness is because she was being railroaded.

The article says the prosecution wasn't given proper access to the expert's testimony before the trial (discovery, they call it). I don't see anything improper about excluding testimony when the rules about testimony are so flagrantly violated. Discovery is very important.

flstf · 03-01-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

The article says the prosecution wasn't given proper access to the expert's testimony before the trial (discovery, they call it). I don't see anything improper about excluding testimony when the rules about testimony are so flagrantly violated. Discovery is very important.

I guess I don't understand this discovery requirement. If Horner was on the witness list shouldn't the prosecution have known that he would dispute their claim that her actions were willful and unlawful? Does his testimony have to be revealed beforehand?

It seems to me that the prosecution should have had a reasonable expectation that the computer expert would attempt to demonstrate what he claimed happened. Even if the judge thought the prosecution needed time to prepare a response, what's wrong with giving them a day or two, after all 40 years of a person's life is at stake.

I can't see how justice is served by not allowing the jury to see what happened and how these popups occur from the websites visited.

stevie667 · 03-01-2007, 07:49 AM

Wow, Americaland strikes again!

That has to be the most stupid trial i have ever heard, i actually have nightmares about this kind of ignorance occuring around me, i can only fathom how she is feeling.

I know plenty of 40yr olds who can barely use a computer, and i know 40 yr olds who don't know how to drive. I bet she knew that turning off the computer would help, but mixed with a panic moment, being told not to do something explicitly (she's only a substitute afterall) and children buzzing around would make most people not think logically.

politicophile · 03-01-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I guess I don't understand this discovery requirement. If Horner was on the witness list shouldn't the prosecution have known that he would dispute their claim that her actions were willful and unlawful? Does his testimony have to be revealed beforehand?

It seems to me that the prosecution should have had a reasonable expectation that the computer expert would attempt to demonstrate what he claimed happened. Even if the judge thought the prosecution needed time to prepare a response, what's wrong with giving them a day or two, after all 40 years of a person's life is at stake.

I can't see how justice is served by not allowing the jury to see what happened and how these popups occur from the websites visited.

Here's Wikipedia's explanation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Subdivision (a) provides for automatic disclosure, which first was added in 1993. Disclosure requires parties to share their own supporting evidence without being requested to by the other party. Failure to do so can preclude that evidence from being used at trial. This applies only to evidence that supports their own case, not anything that would harm their case. For example, a plaintiff brings a case alleging a negligent accident where the defendant damaged the plaintiff's boat. The plaintiff would then be required to automatically disclose repair bills for his damaged property (Since this would only support his case) (26(a)(1)(c)).

Subdivision (b) is the heart of the discovery rule, and defines what is discoverable and what is limited. Anything that is relevant is available for the other party to request, as long as it is not privileged or otherwise protected. Under ¶ 1, relevance is defined as anything more or less likely to prove a fact that affects the outcome of the claim. It does not have to be admissible in court as long as it could reasonably lead to admissible evidence.

This was a clear procedural violation on the part of the defense. There was nothing controversial about the judge's decision to disallow the defense's witness. Looks like Amero's lawyer wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...

Cynthetiq · 03-01-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevie667

Wow, Americaland strikes again!

That has to be the most stupid trial i have ever heard, i actually have nightmares about this kind of ignorance occuring around me, i can only fathom how she is feeling.

I know plenty of 40yr olds who can barely use a computer, and i know 40 yr olds who don't know how to drive. I bet she knew that turning off the computer would help, but mixed with a panic moment, being told not to do something explicitly (she's only a substitute afterall) and children buzzing around would make most people not think logically.

Actually this doesn't just happen in Americaland, but it happens in countries where that follow the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. We can all see things that fall under this all the time on Fark.

So thus in Singapore, because the law reads that automobiles are not to run red lights, neither can ambulances. Most expatriates there are males, my mother was expatriated and normally spouses are also granted limited work permit. Law reads WIFE gets the permit, thus my father could not get a permit because the way the law was written.

Frosstbyte · 03-01-2007, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

"Willful or unlawful" behavior is defined as "the conduct of a person that is deliberately indifferent to, acquiesces in, or creates a situation inimical to the child's moral or physical welfare".

"'Wilfully' means intentionally or deliberately. 'Unlawfully' means without legal right or justification. Causing or permitting a situation to arise within the meaning of this statute requires conduct on the part of the defendant that brings about or permits that situation to arise when the defendant had such control or right of control over the child that the defendant might have reasonably prevented it."

Since the phrase is "willfully or unlawfully", the government needs prove only one of the two beyond a reasonable doubt. To me, Amero's negligent behavior qualifies as "the conduct of a person that... creates a situation inimical to the child's moral... welfare." Also, that last part, "that the defendant might have reasonably prevented [the bad situation]", certainly rings true in my opinion.

By definition, negligent conduct cannot be willful conduct, as any first year law student will be happy to tell you after taking crim and torts. Negligence MEANS that you didn't intend to do it, but you didn't behave as a reasonable prudent person and, thus, are responsible for the injury you caused even though you didn't mean to do it. Which says nothing for the fact that negligence is almost NEVER enough to get you sentenced at the criminal level. Criminal codes almost universally require mens rea or at most recklessness. Jailing someone for negligence, for good reason, is viewed as very extreme.

That being said, I'm not at all sure that-had everyone not been looking to crucify her-she would be even proven to have been negligent. The other teacher expressly forbid her from turning off the computer AND she was in a very delicate situation. I would be 99/100 people would've freaked out and not known what to do if porn pop ups flooded an unfamiliar computer in front of a bunch of kids. Violating a specific instruction doesn't seem very reasonable and panicking does seem very reasonable.

Everything in this case stinks of scapegoating the person with the least power and bureaucratic ability to cover her tracks. Hopefully it gets appealed and tossed out for the shit decision it is. Otherwise, tally another one up for a broken legal system.

flstf · 03-01-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

This was a clear procedural violation on the part of the defense. There was nothing controversial about the judge's decision to disallow the defense's witness. Looks like Amero's lawyer wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer...

I'm sure this is the way the judge saw it as well, but in my mind just putting Horner's name on the witness list in order to refute the prosecution's claim of willful and unlawful should have been enough (discovery) to let him demonstrate why. They surely must have known that he wasn't there to help prove their charges against Amero. It's not like they were being completely blindsided.

Even if the judge felt the prosecution needed more time to respond what's the harm in giving them a few days. The trial was still in progress and this wasn't just a minor infraction, this was for possible life in prison. Not allowing the defense to present crucial evidence because of a disagreement over discovery is probably guranteeing that this will be overturned on appeal.

I have absolutely no first hand knowledge or schooling in regards to the law but from what I have read this case seems to be very unfair. How could the interest of justice be harmed by allowing the jury to see for themslves how the hairstyling site had links to porno popups and how hard it is to stop them?

flat5 · 03-02-2007, 06:14 AM

Aren't judges and district attorneys politically appointed?

If the defendant won the case would not the school district be open to law suits from all the familys of the students involved?

The case should have at least been tried somewhere else.

MSD · 03-02-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Who wants to go check on the flip side of this story?

As a CT resident, I checked. There is no flip side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Maybe not but does the "punishment" really fit the "crime"?

The only reason it's a crime is because of an arbitrary decision by our state legislature. Nobody did anything wrong but people want us to think of the children whether or not the thoughts are rational.

Xazy · 03-29-2007, 02:58 AM

Well in case anyone is curious on updates on the case here are 2 articles from today.

Internet News

Quote:

Computer-Clueless In Connecticut
By Andy Patrizio

Reporter's Notebook: Norwich, Conn., is the setting for the final chapter in a trial that has turned into a travesty of law, justice and technology.

Had the technology aspect of the situation been addressed before things got out of control, a substitute teacher would not now be facing 40 years in prison after a jury convicted her of not doing enough to prevent children from seeing pornographic images on a school computer.

All she appears to be guilty of is being utterly clueless about computers.

As her sentencing approaches, let's review some of the details of the case, as reported in court testimony and local press. On the morning of Oct. 19, 2004, 38-year-old substitute teacher Julie Amero, four months pregnant at the time, was teaching at the Kelly Middle School of Norwich, Conn., a suburban city of 37,000 situated about 20 miles north of New London.

Amero reportedly left the room for a short time. When she came back, she discovered students gathered around the classroom's computer, taking in a stream of pop-up porno advertisements on the monitor. Amero then apparently tried to stop the kids from looking but didn't do what would be obvious to most of us -- shut off the monitor.

It later came out that she asked other teachers for help, but they reportedly declined, and told her it was no big deal, that it happens all the time. According to one account, the school principal told her not to shut off the computer, and the assistant principal of the school told her not to worry.

Well, she had reason to worry, then and now.

The kids went home and told their parents, who then lodged complaints. The school, in turn, promised Amero would never teach there again. She was arrested shortly thereafter and charged with four counts of felony injury to a minor, which carried a total sentence of 40 years in prison.

What about the school's responsibility to the condition of the school's computers. Why was a teacher's computer loaded with spyware? And why had the school failed to renew its firewall license? The antiquated Gateway computer was running Windows 98 with no antivirus software.

When I asked Randy Abrams, director of technical education at antivirus vendor ESET Software, if there was a current antivirus program that still worked on Windows 98, he joked: "I didn't think there were any viruses left that ran on 98."

Herb Horner, owner of Contemporary Computer Consultants, was the forensic examiner called as a defense expert witness in the Amero case. He told me Amero wouldn't even know how to turn off a monitor. "She was totally, totally dumber than dirt when it came to computers. Talk to her husband, he will tell you she knows nothing."

How could she be trained as an educator without using a computer? But she's not the only one. Horner said many teachers in other school districts were equally clueless. So was the jury in her case.

"They were zombified. They had no clue," he said.

The point of the prosecution was that she deliberately exposed the students to the porn. Ultimately, a jury felt she didn't do enough to prevent them from exposure to the pop-ups.

During the trial, Amero testified that she tried to block the kids from seeing the images by standing between them and the computer. Kids also testified to this fact.

While I can't excuse Amero's utter valuelessness about computers, this is not justification for jail. Unfortunately, there were other problems. Amero was just as lost when it came to picking a lawyer as she was in using computers. Her defense attorney, according to Horner, was in the late stages of multiple sclerosis. During cross-examination, he would start asking questions provided by Horner out of sequence.

"The judge knew [his condition], the prosecution knew it, but I didn't know how bad it was until the trial," said Horner.

I'll leave the legal ruminations to the lawyers.

Amero has appealed the sentence and has a new lawyer, all of which is documented in her blog. But sentencing is set for Thursday, March 29th.

The technical travesty of this story is just as sad. Norwich isn't Greenwich, but it's not impoverished, either.

The school's own negligence may not have been on trial here, but that the school provided no firewall and an old Windows 98 computer with no antivirus protection in 2004 is a damning indictment of its own priorities with computing tools.

There probably wasn't a kid in that class who didn't have something better at home. Horner said flat out the kids in the class were far more tech-savvy than anyone else involved in the case.

"Just because a technology is available doesn't mean people use it," he said. "If people are of the right mindset, they will want to learn it or implement it so other people can benefit. It depends on the attitude of the leadership, and I think the leadership at Kelly School was really lacking."

Perhaps we in tech-smart cities been living in advanced technological climates for too long. And therein lies the issue. There are still chunks of America living in the technological Dark Ages.

The Norwich Bulletin, the hometown newspaper, all but convicted Amero in print and made her out to be something akin to a pedophile, claiming she was, "wrong to access several pornographic Web sites on her computer at Kelly Middle School." The article continued with a subhead claiming "intent was apparent" and that "her deeds were disgusting and merit punishment."

What's disgusting is the ignorance on display in the Bulletin. It editorializes on how schools need to protect kids -- and ignores the fact that Kelly had outdated computers with no security software and no firewall.

Fortunately, not all of Connecticut is clueless. The Hartford Courant has railed against the verdict. "This borders on the unbelievable, including the performance of her lawyer during a two-day trial earlier this month," wrote the newspaper's Rick Green.

Julie Amero was originally scheduled to be sentenced on March 2, but she got a reprieve from that until March 29. What we still face, however, is the root of this problem: all of America's schools, teachers, and, apparently, judges and juries need to catch up to the 21st century.

Andy Patrizio is a senior editor in the San Francisco bureau of internetnews.com.

And the second one is.

Amero sentencing delayed to April.

Quote:

For the second time this month, a Connecticut court has delayed the sentencing hearing of Julie Amero, the substitute teacher found guilty of four counts of risking injury to a minor for allowing pornographic pop-up ads to be displayed on her classroom's computer.

The charges stem from a incident in October 2004, when Amero's spyware-infested computer displayed the pop-up ads, some of which were seen by students. On January 5 of this year, a jury found Amero guilty of four counts on risking injury to a minor, which could result in a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison. The delay moves Amero's sentencing to April 26, according to the Hartford Courant.

Security researchers and other technologists have increasingly criticized the case, saying that prosecutors blamed Amero for the acts of one or more spyware programs. A group of security experts have performed an in-depth forensics analysis of an image of Amero's hard drive and have delivered the report to her defense attorney.

Earlier this month, the 346-page trial transcript was posted online by the Norwich Bulletin.

While no reason was given for the delay, the office of the prosecutor in the case has come under increasing pressure and may be reconsidering the case, according to the Hartford Courant. A columnist for the Courant quoted the prosecutor as saying that by the sentencing date, things "could very well change."

The sentencing, originally scheduled for March 2, had been moved to March 29 in late February.

Hopefully they will do the right thing and drop charges but who knows what will happen. I feel bad for her because of everything when this is over, I have no idea how she can pick up the pieces and go back to the education field.

Push-Pull · 03-29-2007, 04:29 AM

Quote:

...Under Section 53-21 of Connecticut law, "Any person who . . . wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation

Wilfully or unlawfully. I don't believe she did either, and I don't believe that it's possible to prove that she did otherwise. But then, I wasn't there, so that's just an opinion....

lurkette · 03-29-2007, 05:29 AM

WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?

/Helen Lovejoy

I don't find it the least bit difficult to believe that

1. a substantial number of people are utterly ignorant of how The Internets, that series of tubes, works;

2. "justice" every once in a while gets subverted in favor of proper procedure and bureaucratic process;

3. people go nutsobagonga when it comes to kids and porn and lose their common sense, especially in the "zero tolerance" atmosphere of our edumacation system.

Introubulated. There, that's 3 Simpson's references...my work here is done.

flat5 · 03-29-2007, 02:11 PM

""justice" every once in a while gets subverted in favor of proper procedure and bureaucratic process;"

Every once in a while??

"Justice" is about winning the case. Nothing more.

As I said above, this trial should have taken place in an area that did not have a vested interest in putting the guilt on the teacher.

Plaid13 · 04-01-2007, 12:41 PM

our justice system is a joke. We should go back to burning witches alive because they floated when we tied them up and tossed them in a river. At least then we might get some good books or movies out of it all. The way it is now is just pethetic. If you can afford a good lawyer you can do whatever you want. if you cant afford a good lawyer your thrown in prison even if you didnt do anything wrong.

Sadly people really are dumb enough to let stuff like this happen. I dont know exactly what kinda porn this was but at a thumbnail size... its most likely nothing too bad. So it comes down to naked = evil. Where most other parts of the planet naked = day at the beach on vacation. This was a 7th grade class. whats that 12 years old about? Most 12 year olds have already seen a glimps of porn somewhere or another.

People are sheep they overreact over the dumbest stuff just because someone else already started to overreact about it. In this case it might ruin someones life. All because of ignorance. Even if they did bring up some hard core nasty full screen porn video and im sure thats not what happened at most it would mean these parents would need to sit down and have a talk with there kids and explain it a bit. but we cant have that better to throw the innocent in prison then sit down and talk to the kids.

Astrocloud · 04-01-2007, 05:00 PM

My guess is that the courtcase just has a bad defense or no defense.

When this is all cleared -I wonder if they are going to charge the creator of the popup trojan. I hate that shit.

MageB420666 · 04-02-2007, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plaid13

This was a 7th grade class. whats that 12 years old about? Most 12 year olds have already seen a glimps of porn somewhere or another.

7th grade is 13 years old.... usually.

All I know is that at 13 I had already seen a whole lot more porn than is contained within pop-ups.

Just reading that law made my head spin. "Morals are likely to be impaired..." Who's morals? Your morals? My morals? What the hell is a piece of legislation doing with such ambiguous and undefined terms?

According to the description of the events as I read them, she's not guilty of anything more than leaving the classroom and not knowing how to work a piece of classroom equipment. Hell, my brother killed a woman(prostitute, long story) and all he faced for that was 28 years(+ another 5 for aggravated kidnapping). She's in control of a room of kids that manage to glimpse some nipples and genitals, but faces up to 40 years, craziness.....

Xazy · 04-24-2007, 04:11 PM

Sentencing was pushed off again from thursday until May 18.

flat5 · 04-25-2007, 11:10 AM

World's King · 04-25-2007, 02:01 PM

Um... ?

I turned off all my protection and went to that hair website.

Not a damn thing happened.

Miss Mango · 06-06-2007, 03:11 PM

She has been granted a new trial.

Quote:

Substitute Teacher Gets New Trial on Porn Charges

A New London Superior court judge this morning overturned the conviction of Julie Amero, who was found guilty of exposing Norwich schoolchildren to pornography on a computer, and has granted Amero a new trial.

Judge Hillary Strackbein said the state had conducted further forensic information that the jury had not heard at the trial. The information, according to defense experts, was that the computer had generated pornographic popups and that Amero, a substitute teacher, was not at fault. Amero had been convicted of four counts of risk of injury to a minor and faced up to 40 years in prison.

She has has been the subject of national attention as of result of the conviction, and seemed relieved after Attorney William Dow explained the judge's ruling.

"I have a great team behind me and I feel very comfortable with the rulings," she said before getting into a car with her husband and leaving.

"It was a porn trap," said Chip Neville, a retired computer sciences professor who had petitioned the office of the Chief State's Attorney to review the verdict.

"We're all exposed to this. We wander into the wrong site innocently."

tenniels · 06-06-2007, 09:09 PM

I feel really bad for this teacher. What a waste of judicial time. I can't believe how some things actually get this far into the system. I hope this thing gets completely resolved and the charges are dropped. As for the kids seeing this stuff, boo freaking hoo. Kids are exposed to stuff all the time. They were probably pretty excited about it too.

02-28-2007, 05:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	I've got to say that this makes the people of the great state of Connecticut look pretty dumb. Obviously (at least to me), the teacher should have shut down the monitor immediately, but I can't believe that there isn't someone in the system that tech-savvy enough to recognize what actually happened. Then again, maybe there is actually something to the prosecution's case that the reporter neglected to mention. It wouldn't be the first time. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

02-28-2007, 07:55 AM	#4 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	Man that was a fair-and-balanced news story if I've ever seen one. I can't jump on the "HOW RIDICULOUS" bandwagon until I see coverage of this story that isn't full of emotional appeal and entirely one-sided. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

02-28-2007, 08:18 AM	#5 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	I want to believe this story...as it is written. I really do... But...I have a hard time accepting the fact that there is that much stupidity, ignorance, and/or corruption...on so many levels and layers. I'm thinking that there has to be more to this, that we are not shown. At least I sure as hell hope that there is. Otherwise, this is the absolute worst beakdown of the judicial system, that I've seen, since I changed my stance on Capital Punishment. Who wants to go check on the flip side of this story? __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

02-28-2007, 08:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	If she doesn't know about how things work, why did she ask to use it? Unfortunately, stupidity is a crime in this country, unless you're sitting on a jury or a Board of Ed.. I'd fully assume she'll appeal this. The charges alone were dumb enough, but 40 years? She should have plied them with weed and booze, she'd have gotten less time Wow....I Googled her name to get more information on this case.... The tech world is aghast and can't say I don't blame them. It appears that the 'computer crimes' detective doesn't know squat about the internet, spyware, etc., yet his testimony was allowed, most of Horner's(an expert for 40 years) was not. Of the 8 kids who testified for the prosecution, not one pointed out who first got to the computer when Amero stepped out and, in fact, not one could identify Amero as the teacher for that day. The computer in question, nor the school network, was investigated or searched for histories other than what was 'clicked on' the day in question.(In the sites I perused, it was explained that this spyware would not have to be 'clicked on' anyway-that fact was not presented at trial). There was no mention of the regular teacher testifying as to what he has 'clicked on'. The superintendent's take on this? "She was supposed to teach the children-this did not happen" Yea, so let's throw her into prison for it. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em. Last edited by ngdawg; 02-28-2007 at 08:48 AM.. Reason: edited to avoid automerging

02-28-2007, 10:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Well...at this point...not knowing anymore than what we do...I'm still not convinced that a crime was even commited. Sure...it's easy to say that she should have unplugged it. She should have unplugged it. But...she panicked. I can see that. I've been in situations where I've panicked and not taken the obvious next step. That mistake's not worth the next 40 years of her life. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

02-28-2007, 09:47 AM	#7 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I'm with Jinn Kai - that was quite possibly the most biased and one-sided article I have ever read. That said, assuming what the article says is ture then I am dumbfounded. It seems like quite the travesty of justice. I too have a hard time believing that failure or incompetency could have occurred on so many levels,but it is possible. If and when the facts do come out, hopefully we will know what really did happen.

02-28-2007, 10:46 AM	#11 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Maybe not but does the "punishment" really fit the "crime"?

02-28-2007, 11:06 AM	#14 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Yes, she hasn't been sentenced yet. She got a new lawyer from a big law firm who has taken on her case pro bono and he asked for the sentencing hearing to be postponed. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

02-28-2007, 11:25 AM	#15 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Hmmm...but is it too late? I mean, if they are already at sentencing the it is essentially at the end of the process? I understand that the players involved followed the letter of the law but isn't there some kind of discretion involved? Judges have been waaaayy lenient on others for far worse crimes. Violent athletes and celebrities come to mind.

02-28-2007, 12:17 PM	#18 (permalink)
Sweetpea Fade out Location: in love	this will obviously be appealed. but it's pretty damn crazy... __________________ Having a Pet Will Change Your Life! Looking for a great pet?! Click Here! "I am the Type of Person Who Can Get Away With A lot, Simply Because I Don't Ask Permission for the Privilege of Being Myself"

03-01-2007, 07:49 AM	#22 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Wow, Americaland strikes again! That has to be the most stupid trial i have ever heard, i actually have nightmares about this kind of ignorance occuring around me, i can only fathom how she is feeling. I know plenty of 40yr olds who can barely use a computer, and i know 40 yr olds who don't know how to drive. I bet she knew that turning off the computer would help, but mixed with a panic moment, being told not to do something explicitly (she's only a substitute afterall) and children buzzing around would make most people not think logically. __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

03-02-2007, 06:14 AM	#27 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	Aren't judges and district attorneys politically appointed? If the defendant won the case would not the school district be open to law suits from all the familys of the students involved? The case should have at least been tried somewhere else.

03-29-2007, 05:29 AM	#31 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!? /Helen Lovejoy I don't find it the least bit difficult to believe that 1. a substantial number of people are utterly ignorant of how The Internets, that series of tubes, works; 2. "justice" every once in a while gets subverted in favor of proper procedure and bureaucratic process; 3. people go nutsobagonga when it comes to kids and porn and lose their common sense, especially in the "zero tolerance" atmosphere of our edumacation system. Introubulated. There, that's 3 Simpson's references...my work here is done. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

03-29-2007, 02:11 PM	#32 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	""justice" every once in a while gets subverted in favor of proper procedure and bureaucratic process;" Every once in a while?? "Justice" is about winning the case. Nothing more. As I said above, this trial should have taken place in an area that did not have a vested interest in putting the guilt on the teacher.

04-01-2007, 12:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
Plaid13 I want a Plaid crayon	our justice system is a joke. We should go back to burning witches alive because they floated when we tied them up and tossed them in a river. At least then we might get some good books or movies out of it all. The way it is now is just pethetic. If you can afford a good lawyer you can do whatever you want. if you cant afford a good lawyer your thrown in prison even if you didnt do anything wrong. Sadly people really are dumb enough to let stuff like this happen. I dont know exactly what kinda porn this was but at a thumbnail size... its most likely nothing too bad. So it comes down to naked = evil. Where most other parts of the planet naked = day at the beach on vacation. This was a 7th grade class. whats that 12 years old about? Most 12 year olds have already seen a glimps of porn somewhere or another. People are sheep they overreact over the dumbest stuff just because someone else already started to overreact about it. In this case it might ruin someones life. All because of ignorance. Even if they did bring up some hard core nasty full screen porn video and im sure thats not what happened at most it would mean these parents would need to sit down and have a talk with there kids and explain it a bit. but we cant have that better to throw the innocent in prison then sit down and talk to the kids.

04-01-2007, 05:00 PM	#34 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	My guess is that the courtcase just has a bad defense or no defense. When this is all cleared -I wonder if they are going to charge the creator of the popup trojan. I hate that shit.

04-24-2007, 04:11 PM	#36 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	Sentencing was pushed off again from thursday until May 18.

04-25-2007, 11:10 AM	#37 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	tnx

04-25-2007, 02:01 PM	#38 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Um... ? I turned off all my protection and went to that hair website. Not a damn thing happened. __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

06-06-2007, 09:09 PM	#40 (permalink)
tenniels Insane Location: Oh Canada!!	I feel really bad for this teacher. What a waste of judicial time. I can't believe how some things actually get this far into the system. I hope this thing gets completely resolved and the charges are dropped. As for the kids seeing this stuff, boo freaking hoo. Kids are exposed to stuff all the time. They were probably pretty excited about it too. __________________ I like things. And stuff. But I prefer to have things over stuff.