Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Questionable Conviction of Connecticut Teacher in Pop-up Porn Case

By Lindsay Beyerstein, AlterNet. Posted January 19, 2007.


When lax cybersecurity meets anti-porn hysteria, an innocent computer infection can land you in jail. Just ask Julie Amero, a 40-year old substitute teacher who maintains she's a victim of a malicious software infestation that caused her computer to spawn porn uncontrollably.
Advertisement

Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing up to 40 years in prison for exposing her seventh grade class to a cascade of pornographic imagery. Amero maintains that she is a victim of a malicious software infestation that caused her computer to spawn porn uncontrollably.

Adware, spyware and other infectious software are known hazards to security and privacy -- and when lax cybersecurity meets anti-porn hysteria, a mailware infection can even land you in jail. Malicious coders are getting more sophisticated all the time, but law enforcement and the criminal justice system aren't keeping up. A criminal conviction can hang on the difference between a deliberate mouse click and an involuntary redirect on an infested computer. Too often, even so-called experts can't tell the difference.

On the morning of Oct. 19, 2004, Julie Amero's life changed forever when pornographic ads flooded her web browser during a class. According to the prosecuting attorney, David Smith, Amero's computer began displaying images of naked men and women, couples performing sexual acts, and "bodily fluids."

Chances are, these kids had seen porn pop-ups before. Family Safe Media estimates that boys 12 to 17 consume more internet porn than any other group. The adults at Kelly Middle School, however, were shocked and scandalized. The next week, the school sent home a notice telling parents why Amero would never teach in the district again. She was arrested shortly thereafter and charged with multiple felonies.

At trial, six of Amero's former students testified that they saw pornographic images on her monitor, either from their seats, or when they came up to her desk. One student told the court that Amero pushed his face away from the screen when she saw him looking at the racy ads.

Millions of PCs worldwide are infected with some form of malicious software. An internal Microsoft report found that four million Windows machines were infected with some form of malicious software ("malware") in mid-2006.

Spyware, adware, worms and viruses are parasitic programs that can hijack web browsers, launch unsolicited pornographic ads, and even report the inner workings of a computer to a remote observer. Users routinely download these programs without realizing they've been infected.

Amero's attorney, John F. Cocheo, argued that malware was responsible for the pornographic images, not his client.

Detective Mark Lounsbury, a computer crimes officer at the Norwich Police Department testified as an expert witness for the prosecution. He maintained that Amero was intentionally surfing for pornography while her seventh grade class busied itself with language arts.

Lounsbury told the court that Amero musts have "physically clicked" on pornographic links during class time in order to unleash the pornographic pictures. However, he admitted under cross-examination that the prosecution never even checked the computer for malware.

Why didn't the police check for malicious software? According to prosecutor David Smith, the police didn't check for malware because the defense didn't raise the possibility of a malware attack during the pretrial phase, as required by law. Defense attorney Cocheo could not be reached for comment as of press time.

Herb Horner, the proprietor of the consulting firm Contemporary Computing Consultants, testified as an expert witness for the defense. His exhaustive independent forensic analysis of Amero's hard drive showed that the machine had been infected with multiple pieces of malicious software before she arrived at the school, and that these hidden programs were responsible for the pornographic deluge.

Horner arrived in court with two laptops filled with the voluminous records of his investigation. However, the judge only let him present two slides. Prosecutor Smith objected because his team hadn't been previously informed about the malware defense.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: justice, cyberporn, computer infections

Lindsay Beyerstein is a New York writer blogging at majikthise.typepad.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
As a former high school teacher...
Posted by: Obijuan on Jan 19, 2007 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I am horrified by this case. I had a room with four computers on it which I regularly had to clear of all sorts of nonsense the students downloaded (both intentionally and unintentionally). The idea that somehow this teacher had exposed them intentionally with malice is obsurd. We are on our way to hell in a handbasket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The real headlines... Posted by: andyc
» RE: The real headlines... Posted by: morticia
» RE: The real headlines... Posted by: andyc
» RE: The real headlines... Posted by: morticia
» Futhermore.... Posted by: morticia
That's Windows for you!
Posted by: chomsky on Jan 19, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Windows computer + Internet connection = Disaster!

All computers running Windows 95, 98, or XP and connected to the Internet are in a perilous position. The only way to protect one of these computers is by installing security updates, virus protection, firewall, blacklisting all known bad websites, regular malware scanning, and using an alternative web browser. And even then they still can get infected!

Within seconds of plugging in the Internet cable, an unpatched Windows computer will be infected by the blaster virus. I've seen it happen, in seconds! And since you have to update Windows on the Internet to fix the Blaster security hole, you have a Catch-22.

Defending a Windows computer against malware not only requires IT skills, it requires militaristic strategy! You have to, find and destroy infected files, fortify the OS, know the enemy, anticipate unconventional attacks and learn how to counter them. When battling some pretty nasty infections, I've seen a virus take complete control of Norton Antivirus, effectively turning your alley against you. There is a reason why they use terms like "Trojans" and "attacks." War terms are the only way to describe it.

The best way to avoid all this trouble is to just get a Mac, and put more Macs in schools. Macintosh Computers don't have any virus or malware problems. You can connect a Mac to the Internet without risk of compromising it.

Some Windows advocates say that this is true because Windows is more popular, therefore a better target for malware. This is partially true, but there is a lot more to it. The main reason why Macs are more secure is because they are designed in an incredibly well thought out and secure way. Mac OS 10.3 was never compromised by any sort of virus or malware. Then they released 10.4, adding many more security layers to a system that was already proven impervious. Some might think that's excessive, but that is what you have to do to effectively stop malware before it happens.

Windows security is just lame. Anyone with a bit of Scripting skills can read about an un-patched Windows vulnerability on the web and create malware programs similar to the one that got Amero arrested. The problem isn't just the people writing the malware, it's the fact that they can compromise Windows so easily, with so little effort or.

Macs, like any system created by human beings, can't be perfect. So it is possible that someone might one day create malware that can successfully attack a Mac. It would take truly masterful hacking to overcome all of Mac's masterful security structures. No one has done it yet, although many have tried. Its security is virtually impenetrable.

I switched from Windows to Mac about a year ago, and I'm still amazed at how much time I've saved not having to deal with malware. Since everything works the way it's suppose to, I can spend all my time on the computer being productive or having fun.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That's Windows for you! Posted by: chomsky
» RE: That's Windows for you! Posted by: Seeker
» FUD & Misinformation Posted by: NoPCZone
» You are Mostly Correct Posted by: sofla100
The school paid for windows.
Posted by: colinmeister on Jan 19, 2007 3:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, the evil of Bill Gates' products destroy a life. The school in question had bought Microsoft Windows 98, and the unfortunate substitute teacher had no choice but to use it.

There are freely available open source operating systems and web browsers which can be downloaded from the internet, and free applications to make these systems useful in schools. The use of an operating system like Sun's Solaris or one of the many flavours of Linux would have prevented the children from seeing any scatological content, and the good lady would still have her job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why was the computer even turned on?
Posted by: AndyF on Jan 19, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple question maybe, but why was the computer even on. She was supposed to be teaching a class, the class wasn't doing computer work, so why did she even have it on. I'm not disputing the fact that school security was non-existant and that she may be innocent, I'm just asking why she felt the need to turn it on. Computers are becoming like TVs and Radios always on even when no one is using them. It appears that she could have done the job she was hired to do, probably more effectively if she had turned off the computer and interacted with her students rather than sitting at her desk while they worked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» She was a sub... Posted by: supercrisp
This is false, win98 can be made secure with little trouble or money
Posted by: WhatNow? on Jan 19, 2007 4:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Amero was working on a very old Gateway PC running Windows 98, an extremely vulnerable setup."

I use Pentium II's with windows 98 with little to no trouble. BUT, I use 98Lite to remove internet explorer and install Mozilla Firefox. Once internet explorer is removed windows 98 becomes much more stable, and when something crashes it is usually the program itself and not the entire OS. Zone Alarm is an excellent firewall that I would never be without if I was using a windows computer. Plus there are a few decent virus scanners that are inexpensive or free.

It's terrible Amero had the computer on. She must not be the brightest bulb in the batch either. I am always wary when using someone else's computer. That may have been the only thing she did wrong. I can not understand trying to punish her so severely for such an insignificant mistake. I'll bet she will be more careful with computers in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How do you know Posted by: zedaker
» Mozilla not virus free Posted by: harpy
The reason the NAZI police didn't question the malware companies was
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 19, 2007 5:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they're being fucking bribed day after day. Besides the fact that Corporate America controls their private parts !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A stupid teacher deserves the penalty he gets
Posted by: mat38 on Jan 19, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about it, if you had a laptop that you knew was infected with pornography, and that it was subject to an unwelcoming cascade of unwelcomed pronagraphic images, and that it could happen at any time, would you even bring that computer into a school with you? Even if you did would you dare open it in a room full of kids? Never mind that he was sitting at a desk in a classroom with it open. Why didn't he just close the screen down when it began showing the ads?
Sorry, I don't believe for a second it was an accident. I think that guy was sitting in a classroom of children looking at pornopgraphy. I am also a teacher and as such whatever adults do in their adult world when you in a school you are a teacher and mentor of children and their is no place for pornography in the classroom. Any person who owns a computer in 2006 should have better sense than he diplayed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Daily Porn
Posted by: laoma on Jan 19, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forty years in prison for nudity? Give me a f**king break. The world's public has been subjected to the most massive display of pornography over the past 4 years by the Repugnonazi in DC that the sight of active, energetic nudity should be like....well, the Second Cumming.

It's OK to teach our children to lie, cheat, steal, defraud, manipulate, kill, butcher, rape, torture, , but to expose them to some realistic sex education? Oh, my goodness, how horrible can it get?

Sexual repression is a good indicator of hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Convicted Murder Posted by: AlienSlave
» Human Sexuality Posted by: DataDoc
» RE: Human Sexuality Posted by: Setnakt
NHS
Posted by: nhs on Jan 19, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The School Administrators should be facing the criminal charges. If the School PC's were directed though a router, which could easily be set up to block access to porn sites, none of this would have happened. As this is the "standard" proceedure these days, why should any teacher, let alone a substitute, be required to suspect the school computer to be infected by malware and have the capacity to access porn sites?

EVEN IF a teacher has the criminal intent to expose children to porn, having the School PC go through a router, which blocks access to porn sites, would offer protection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem is with negligent computer users (including her)
Posted by: g on Jan 19, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion that the teacher intentionally exposed the students to pornography is ridiculous. However, it is past time computer owners started taking responsibility for their computers. Car owners and drivers are supposed to take a test and keep up with maintenance-since their car can hurt others. The same way, it is a well known fact that computers infected with viruses and malware can hurt others by sending around more malware as well as tons of spam. It is an owner's responsibility to know this and act. It does not require a major in computer science, just downloading (mostly free) software and keeping it updated. All it requires is that owners abandon their attitude of "why should I bother? It's so complicated." If you don't want to be bothered with computing security, you should not be allowed to go online. I am starting to thing that there should be a mandatory exam, just like the one you take to get your driver's license... And yes I do hold this teacher responsible for her negligence. If she was my kids's teacher, I'd not go easy on her. But intentionally exposing them to porn... give me a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Example of the stupidity of the American public.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 19, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, porn shows natural functions. Our sequestered society does not remember the common living condition of agricultural and early industrial families were nudity and sexual intercourse were open for view in the family.

Second, Americans are to insecure and anxious about little matters. Most feel no control over there lives, so they tend to blow things out of perspective. This case is an example.

Third, this proves the intolerence of American society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why aren't aggressive pornography pushers to blame?
Posted by: anotherday on Jan 19, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't fathom what reasoning the author used to point her finger at "anti-porn hysteria" when people are upset about 12-year-olds seeing Internet pornography. The best I can figure is she thinks 12-17 year-olds are already watching double anal penetration and ass-to-mouth pornography so some more toxic anti-sex imagery popping up in a classroom is no big whoop.

It is a big whoop to parents and to people not so saturated with a steady pornography diet they've become desensitized to the violence and disrespect displayed in mainstream pornography and the power of such evocative images on kids.

Why are pornographers and porn advertisers not responsible for forcing their "adult-only" products on every man, women, and child that comes 10 feet near a computer? I could not hand out beer to 12-year-olds with the excuse that many kids have already used alcohol so it's no big deal, so why can't the porn-pushing abusers of the Internet not be held to existing legal standards for willfully ignoring age restrictions for their aggressively promoted product?

Unfortunately, to get to that point more liberals would have to begin seeing the hands of wealthy corporate pornographers behind such pop up "accidents" where right now they jump into a predictable pornographer-defending stance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Innocent" children, "controversial" subjects
Posted by: godsbedamned on Jan 19, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with douglashoyt and many other posters. My first thought, when reading the news articles about this, was, Isn't porn part of our social situation? Shouldn't students be discussing this in the classroom? Isn't this a teachable moment?

Also, why do we consider children to be 'innocent' vessels who should not be hear or see any of the problems of the world? When people say, it's the job of parents to introduce 'controversial' topics at home, I always think, gee, isn't that a self-serving way of saying 'I don't want my child exposed to anything that challenges bigotry or fosters critical thinking'? (Case in point: The parents and religious leaders who get up in arms when schools discuss homosexuality as something natural and not deviant? [as if heterosexuality is anything less constructed]).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Too bad she didn't have more $$$
Posted by: Raj on Jan 19, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a substitute teacher, I'm sure she didn't have the best and the brightest representing her in court. People who can afford great lawyers like O.J. get to buy their way out of trouble, while a teacher faces 40 years?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Too bad she didn't have more $$$ Posted by: counterpoint
If it wasn't for early exposure to porn...
Posted by: Habaro on Jan 19, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...I wouldn't be The World's Greatest Lover.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Children should be obscene and not heard? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
funny---they don't seem psycho to me
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 19, 2007 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that exposure to erotic material or an open attitude to sex leads necessarily to a corrupted life full of anti-social behavior--as so many Americans seem to think. It is other factors that lead to sex crimes, etc.

If that were true, then hundreds of thousands of Africans, Eskimos, and Pacific Islanders who as kids grew up in environments where sex and eroticism were open and tolerated--well I guess they should be alot more psycho then they appear to be today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Miscarriage of Justice
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 19, 2007 10:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being inexpert about computers, I'm more concerned about the blatant miscarriage of justice in this case. The judge & prosecutor knowingly conspired to suppress critical evidence - right there in front of everybody. I don't care what the "rules" were, the judge is there to prevent this sort of thing, not cause it.

The judge also failed to properly instruct the jury, or they would never have voted to convict where there was obvious doubt. I'm afraid prosecutors, in particular, now work to keep intelligent people off juries, in order to make convictions easier. I keep wondering what kind of idiots those jurors were, and not only in this case. I think they're selected for that during pretrial maneuvering. That should not be possible; lawyers should not be able to remove potential jurors except "for cause" - the present system sanctions jury rigging. (The defense also made serious mistakes, according to this report. I'm offended that the judge allowed that to cause a miscarriage of justice. The case should have been dismissed as soon as Horner testified.)

So, yes, they were all idiots about computers and the Internet, but that shouldn't have mattered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who the Hell was the Judge? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Who the Hell was the Judge? Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: Miscarriage of Justice Posted by: AlienSlave
» Not exactly Posted by: mythago
» RE: Miscarriage of Justice Posted by: canttouchthis
She should be the one suing someone
Posted by: moschops on Jan 19, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole thing is ridiculous, if anyone should be suing someone now it should be the teacher for having to use such a porn-pop-up prone system and having her reputation trashed before anyone even did the most basic investigation as to whether the popup storm was her doing or not. No one loads that kind of stuff on their system intentionally, and even if clicking on a link to an actual porn site no one expects to have their computer go bezerk like that. Sure if she had sat there clicking through pages of a porn site while kids watched I'd give her some blame, but that clearly wasn't the case.

She should be suing someone for providing computer software that was prone to pops like that, a network that allowed access to porn content instead of just blocking them (or allowing only access to specific safe sites), and providing a computer to use that was riddled with spyware. What is the point of "Cop" software if it can't block such sites and if no one is paying attention to the problems it detects?

When teaching a computer should be set to give a complete clean and known environment every time you log on, just like in an Internet cafe set up - if you want to save something for beyond the session then save it to a personal USB disk for later use. It doesn't require a Mac or Linux box to acheive this, and software like VMWare can provide a rock solid roll back to known clean environment on every startup.

Schools should use these solutions and not engage in blame fest until they have secure and safe environments for teachers and kids to use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Schools should use these solutions Posted by: dangerouslysane
Sue the school district
Posted by: Seeker on Jan 19, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She should sue the school district for millions. That will get the local officials to rapidly change their attitudes - and maybe install a firewall and anti everything software.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sue the school district Posted by: zoomorph
I'll bet a soaked pajama.....
Posted by: morticia on Jan 19, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that that old classroom PC got worked over by squads of kids for less-than-wholesome purposes long before that teacher ever got her hands on it. Here's a simple formula, whether we approve of it or not: 12-year-olds+unattended computers=porn. 12-year-olds are horny creatures. When I was 12, I had to get my porn from LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER, but if there had been a computer for me to get my paws on, I'd have been all over it. Today's kids grew up with computers--they're practically born knowing how to use them. They know how to find porn for free, and they do. It's a fact of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'll bet a soaked pajama..... Posted by: AlienSlave
think of the children!
Posted by: Jackrabbit on Jan 19, 2007 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have we become?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the teacher actually was doing what they are accused of. Does anyone in their right mind consider what happened to warrent 6 felonies? Years in jail?

If we give such a shit about kids then why are so many of them uninsured? Why are so many living in poverty? Why are so many undereducated? And why aren't we taking care of the planet they'll inherit when we're gone?

This incident is so absurd as to be laughable. But someones life hangs in the balance because of it. We are being treated like fools. Bullied about by idiots. I'm sick of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: think of the children! Posted by: morticia
» RE: think of the children! Posted by: dewiniaeth
Please make corrections to the article.
Posted by: Realman on Jan 19, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet editors:

I've come across a few glaring mistakes in Alternet articles I've read today. Below are the ones I found in this article. Could you please fix them?

"One piece of spyware had been already been tracking the computer for about a month."

"Amero musts have"

"from readers who accusing them "

"a mailware infection" - may or may not be a mistake; both the term "malware" and "mailware" is used in the article later, but I think "malware" is what was intended in all cases.

I realize pointing this out is somewhat off-topic; but it saddens me that an otherwise good article is marred by a lack of proofreading. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why didn't she just turn the monitor off?
Posted by: malika on Jan 19, 2007 12:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a sub myself, mostly at a nearby high school, I am no stranger to the "antics" students enjoy with computers. If I had been in this teacher's position, I would have just turned the monitor off and called security. The article describes her pushing a student away, and other students observing the porn from their desks--so it must have been going on for some time. Was she so astonished or bemused that she sat there watching the show long enough for others to notice? She should have immediately turned the monitor off, or just turned the computer itself off. She could not be blamed for shutting it off, and protecting her class. And, for those of you who assert that these visions of nudity and certain bodily functions are natural--you may be right, but remember that these "natural" scenes are in no circumstance appropriate for a public school classroom. Ever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She's going to own them.
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Jan 19, 2007 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is going to get thrown out, and she's going to turn around and become a very wealthy woman. I'm really not worried, although I am COMPLETELY appalled that things even went as far as they did as far as her punishment.

I mean, you have a cop that's cowering and hiding from people, saying, "Uh, everyone hates meeeee! Oh, noes! And I didn't check the computer! But that's not important! WAAAAH!" You have obvious procedural screwups. You have people that openly admit to pandering to the parents' bloodlust. In short, she's going to be wealthy. I mean, this article, with the stupid quotes, is enough to make anyone wonder what the hell people were thinking.

And shame on these porn companies for peddling their wares through such shady methods. Come the hell on. It's just getting out of hand if it's costing people their freedom and their jobs! I hope she sues them, too!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 -