Substitute teacher Julie Amero faces up to 40 years in prison for exposing kids to porn using a classroom computer, but the facts strongly suggest that she was wrongfully convicted. Many issues remain, from the need for an independent computer forensics investigation and the presence of spyware and adware on the machine, to bad or incomplete legal work on both sides of this criminal case.
Substitute teacher Julie Amero faces up to 40 years in prison for exposing kids to porn using a classroom computer, but the facts strongly suggest that she was wrongfully convicted. Many issues remain, from the need for an independent computer forensics investigation and the presence of spyware and adware on the machine, to bad or incomplete legal work on both sides of this criminal case.
Substitute teacher Julie Amero faces up to 40 years in prison for exposing kids to porn using a classroom computer, but the facts strongly suggest that she was wrongfully convicted. Many issues remain, from the need for an independent computer forensics investigation and the presence of spyware and adware on the machine, to bad or incomplete legal work on both sides of this criminal case.
bit of a long read. doesn't look like she was guilty of anything more than being a skiver
yeah, but it happened on several occasions. if the teacher saw it once, she should have either turned it off and got a hold of the school's IT dept.
it's a harsh sentence no doubt, but could have been avoided if the teacher had used part of that peanut in her cranial turret.
Not worth of more than a good talking to from the school's management. Being procecuted over something like this? C'mon. Don't get angry when people say "only in america...".
bit of a long read. doesn't look like she was guilty of anything more than being a skiver
yeah, but it happened on several occasions. if the teacher saw it once, she should have either turned it off and got a hold of the school's IT dept.
it's a harsh sentence no doubt, but could have been avoided if the teacher had used part of that peanut in her cranial turret.
Don't get angry when people say "only in america...".
wtf, it has nothing to do with that you blatant retard. a harsh talking to from IT? if she saw porn continually popping up on there, leave the fucking thing off if there's children around. YES the sentence is fucking ridiculous, but this shit could have been avoided.
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:
yeah, but it happened on several occasions. if the teacher saw it once, she should have either turned it off and got a hold of the school's IT dept.
it's a harsh sentence no doubt, but could have been avoided if the teacher had used part of that peanut in her cranial turret.
Don't get angry when people say "only in america...".
wtf, it has nothing to do with that you blatant retard. a harsh talking to from IT? if she saw porn continually popping up on there, leave the fucking thing off if there's children around. YES the sentence is fucking ridiculous, but this shit could have been avoided.
idiot.
No one here is claiming that the teacher took responsibility and acted accordingly. The point is that you live in a country that finds "justice" in sentencing a woman, guilty of laxness with relatively tiny consequences, to 40 years in prison.
Imprisonment over something like this is absurd to begin with, let alone fourty years of it. That's beyond "harsh". That's through harsh and out the other end. Harsh would be to sack her. Prosecuting her over it is bloody nonsense that only the biggest idiots with the most wrong sense of justice in the world could come up with.
I'm confused. The article says she told people that porn pop-ups were all over the screen and she even went to get help to stop them. But later in the article it says:
The police detective indicated that the police never examined the school computer for the existence of Trojan horses, logic bombs, spyware, adware or other malicious code. They reportedly didn’t do this because the defense did not raise the “malware defense” prior to trial. Indeed, many have conjectured that the “pop-up” defense was manufactured for the trial, and that Julie never told anyone about the pop-ups at the time, or indeed at any time prior to trial.
and
It appears that the government did not rebut the argument that the substitute teacher was the victim of pop-ups because they didn’t know that was going to be the defense. In fact, Amero may not have even raised this as a defense until immediately before trial. It also appears that, as a result the defense wasn’t fully able to present this defense because they didn’t give the government sufficient notice of the expert’s reports.
I don't understand that. I thought that was pretty much the entire defense. She was looking for hairstyle sites, got pop-up bombed and the kids saw it.
Eraser wrote:
Don't get angry when people say "only in america...".
wtf, it has nothing to do with that you blatant retard. a harsh talking to from IT? if she saw porn continually popping up on there, leave the fucking thing off if there's children around. YES the sentence is fucking ridiculous, but this shit could have been avoided.
idiot.
No one here is claiming that the teacher took responsibility and acted accordingly. The point is that you live in a country that finds "justice" in sentencing a woman, guilty of laxness with relatively tiny consequences, to 40 years in prison.
Imprisonment over something like this is absurd to begin with, let alone fourty years of it. That's beyond "harsh". That's through harsh and out the other end. Harsh would be to sack her. Prosecuting her over it is bloody nonsense that only the biggest idiots with the most wrong sense of justice in the world could come up with.
no shit our system's fucked up among other things. jesus, broken record syndrome? you don't need to tell me what i already know. the sub should've lost her job, end of story. nothing more, nothing less. but, there should also be blame put on an obviously incompetent IT dept at the school.
+JuggerNaut+ wrote: if she saw porn continually popping up on there, leave the fucking thing off if there's children around. YES the sentence is fucking ridiculous, but this shit could have been avoided.
i only read the first page of the article, but it appears she did try to do something about it right?
The substitute teacher said that she immediately stepped in and shielded the children from the images, pushing them away or physically blocking them from seeing the images. As she tried to close the pop-ups down, new ones would pop-up. She walked down the hall to get the assistance of another faculty member, who advised her that there was nothing that could be done. Meanwhile, of course, the hard-core porn was popping up on the computer for all the seventh graders to see. The substitute asked one of the teachers to call for the school principal to help, but no help was forthcoming. At the end of the day, Amero reported the problem to the assistant principal, who told her “not to worry.” Apparently, the incident was not seen as all that significant, and the log data indicates that Amero had continued to use the computer for the rest of the day – browsing lots of other sites, unrelated to porn. Oh yeah, and unrelated to her work as a substitute teacher. In fact, it appears that Julie continued to browse the web all day – even after the pop-up incident
there are of course conflicting news of what actually happened. the article i read over a month ago merely said she turned her back and bam, there were popups within eye sight of the children.
it seems hard to believe that if she told someone in the facility that there was PORN displaying on her pc, that everyone turned the other cheek? also, it says she "shielded" the children from the images? how about turning the fucking pc off until she got assistance? then she gets back on and surfs the rest of the day?
If you read further jules, she did go down the hallway to get someone to "fix" it. I don't know what was done to stop the popups but it says she then used the computer for the rest of the day looking for more hair style sites.
wtf? She just cruised the net all day while the kids sat there? Usually teachers leave some kind of lesson plan or something that can be done while they're out.
If they can't prove that she did porn searches, or landed on porn sites and hung out on them, and/or dl'd porn, then she should just be let go for being on the net all day. Not go to prison.
