More Amero support noted

Justice For All? (0.00 / 0)

While I agree with its supportive-of-Amero overall message, the second Courant LTTE (fourth blockquote overall) above contains a clause that bears more examination:

The lack of controls puts students in danger of being exposed to pornography...

I'm concerned that we, as a society, seem fixated on the "danger" of young people being exposed to internet pornography, to an extent that makes us lose our sense of proportion. Mind you, I'm not arguing that exposing impressionable youths to graphic images is a good thing... but in the final analysis pixels on a screen are just pixels on a screen. Not for nothin', but exactly how many people did Janet Jackson's nipple actually kill?

Part of it, I think, is that our culture is seriously uptight about anything involving sexuality... but more to the point is our post-9/11 heightened sense of the general riskiness of the world, combined with a somewhat ironic deep-seated distrust of the very information technologies we've all become so dependent on. I mean, here in CT it's a terrifying felony if children catch a fleeting glimpse of porn on the internet... while in Indiana a class full of sixth graders can watch two of their classmates put on a sex show in the flesh and nobody even gets reprimanded (except, of course, the wildly dangerous 12-year-old exhibitionists themselves, who face expulsion). It's a topsy-turvy world, I tell you!

There's a little bit more about the Indiana story at my personal blog, and a substantial thread at Pharyngula. I wasn't the only (or even first) one to notice the contrast between this case and Amero's.

---

by: dauphinb @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:18:03 AM UTC

Risk of injury to a minor? Please. (0.00 / 0)

Even if she did puposefully expose "the children" to porn (I in no way believe that she did), I see other examples every day that are not taken into account.  For instance, there's this moron who takes his kid and a friend on their ATV's to go riding on private property along the local power lines. 

In order to get there, they must traverse two parcels of private property, two parcels of state property, and then cross a busy road so they can ride their 4 wheel destroyers of the environment.  So, in summary, Papa Moron teaches his kid to invade private property and to break state traffic laws and that's OK, but they are going to try to put this woman in jail because she did not unplug a fucking computer.  Just brilliant.

What about the morons who smoke in a motor vehicle while their children are in it?  What about other motor vehicle infractions when children are present, like speeding, tailgating, and improper lane change?

There is a serious disconnect going on when it comes to this nebulous "risk of injury to a minor" crapola.

---

by: snorwich @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:37:00 AM UTC

No Injury Required... (0.00 / 0)

...only risk. It's probably been a little bit exaggerated... but probably only a little bit... but the stories I've read about CT's endangerment law in connection to the Amero case make it seem extraordinarily broad.

For instance, there's this moron who takes his kid and a friend on their ATV's to go riding on private property along the local power lines.

It halfway seems like just leaving the kids alone in the garage with the ATVs might qualify as endangerment, even if they never fired them up!

As I say, that's probably an overstatement... but I've read enough about this law recently to be very glad my kid is nearly grown! :|

---

by: dauphinb @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:30:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're right - it is an important aspect of the case (4.00 / 1)

From my layman's understanding of the issues involved ,the risk of injury law IS part of the scary thing about this  LAW.  It is my understanding that a person need only be responsible for creating the conditions in which injury might occur, no matter how inadvertent or unpremeditated  that might be.  Whether or not a jury would have the opportunity to convict someone is directly related to the prosecutor's being willing to take someone to trial with the lower standard for proving intent to commit a crime that this law apparently has.

As lawyers who blog have previously noted, it leaves a lot up to prosecutorial discretion.

I have written to my legislator about this case, and have raised the question as to whether the law needs to be rewritten.  It seems tremendously unfair to let this "work itself out" in the courts at the expense (and loss of life savings) of people like Julie Amero.

Something I have not seen discussed anywhere is whether there was a grand jury process, and whether that process attempted to sort out who was responsible for the situation that occurred, or whether all roads led to the sub teacher before any careful inquiry into the facts was ever done.

I'd like to understand better why no one else involved in creating the conditions to put a minor at risk of pornographic pixels (such as the IT guy or the school administrator responsible for keeping the bills to the filtering software company or the administration that failed to create a "porn fire drill procedure" that informed all teachers how to handle this situation deemed dangerous enough to send a teacher to jail for 40 years - how come THEY are off the hook?

---

by: greenpeas @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:05:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Computer profs urge independent investigator in teacher porn case (0.00 / 0)

(Hartford-AP) _ Nearly 30 Connecticut computer science professors have signed a letter urging an independent investigation in the case of a Norwich substitute teacher convicted of exposing her students to pornography on a classroom computer.

The professors from eight Connecticut colleges and universities took out an ad in Tuesday's Hartford Courant. They wrote on behalf of Julie Amero, a 40-year-old Windham resident with no prior criminal record convicted in January of four counts of risk of injury to a minor.

She faces up to 40 years in prison when she is sentenced March 29th.

While prosecutors insist she is guilty, some experts believe that the lewd images were caused by unseen spyware and adware programs, which critics call one of the top scourges of the Internet.

The 28 professors who signed the letter want an independent investigator brought in to look at the case, and they want Amero's sentencing delayed until that investigation is complete. Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane won't say whether that's a possibility.

http://wtnh.com/Glob...

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 04:53:08 AM UTC