Posted on 03/04/2007 7:34:16 AM PST by SamAdams76
In what can be associated with the string of teacher abuses student cases in the 90s, the new face of educational abuse has reared its ugly head in the classroom: pornographic pop-ups.
July Amero, a 7th grade school teacher residing in Windham, Connecticut, is facing a maximum penalty of 40 years in prison for, risk of causing injury to a minor.
Back in 2004, July was teaching in her normal classroom, when on the rooms computer appeared a flood of sexually explicit pornographic pop-ups.
She panicked, and attempted to close the pop-ups, but as some of us have had the displeasure of experiencing, this only created more pop-ups, and unfortunately some of the students witnessed the graphic spam.
To make matters worse, July might have simply powered off the machine, but a strict school policy demanded classroom computers never be shut-off. July rejected a plea-bargain that would have saved her from jail, and is now defending herself in court, which is seeming to be a wise decision.
The school administration admitted the networks firewall had been disabled because the bill for the software was not paid, which left the computer vulnerable to the malicious spam.
It was also revealed that the officer who inspected the computer in question failed to test the computer for infections or spyware. Alex Eckelberry, president of a software company commented, That is a blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at the crime scene.
If the computer was infected, the pop-ups could have been triggered by 2 students who used the computer before the teacher to visit a hairstyle website. With such a list of gross miscalculations and irresponsible actions, Julys case seems positive; however, it raises some very interesting questions that will no doubt be addressed upon this cases conclusion.
Spy-ware is an unavoidable demon for modern PC users; the best one can do is to regularly purge and protect the against the newest forms. If this is the case, how can someones livelihood and freedom be forfeited over something that cannot be completely protected against?
Furthermore, the way computers are accessed in classrooms must change if individual teachers are to be held responsible for the content that is accessed. If students are allowed to access computers freely without supervision and complete internet freedom, would it not stand to reason they might search for objectionable material?
It would seem that the parties that should be held accountable for this situation are the schools administration. First, good tax-payer money is being spent to pay for computers, internet access, and a stalwart firewall pay the bills on time. If you cant, do not blame your teachers.
Secondly, those in charge of the school should re-evaluate the current policies regarding the shutting down or monitoring of classroom machines. It is unjust to hold the teacher responsible for her reaction to the pop-ups when no policy had been established for handling such mishaps.
Amidst all the finger-pointing and accusation-making, an honest school teachers life has been irreversibly tainted. It would be best to evaluate this happenstance thoroughly and react appropriately so no one else must endure what July Amero is experiencing.
Is there any wonder why we have trouble finding good schoolteachers today?
Why the parents, school faculty and good citizens didn't rally behind her and stop this travesty of justice is beyond me. I guess everybody has been paying more attention to the travails of Britney Spears and Nicole Simpson.
Moreover, who decided to pursue these charges? This would seem to be a matter requiring the discretion of the prosecutor, or is there some reason they cannot fail to pursue?
And the slender blonde that was "involved" with one of here students got some probation or something?
I presume you are working from more material than is present here. The article does not say she is between conviction and sentencing, and actually implies that she's not been convicted yet.
Nevertheless, that such could even be possibly going to trial illustrates the nature of the judicial system some here seem to think is perfect.
What they did to this teacher is absolutely horrifying. Unless they can show that she was visiting porn sites, they have no leg to stand on. The prosecutor has his head so far up his backside that it's unbelievable. When this is over, her conviction will be overturned and she'll have her job back with back-pay.
The school administration admitted the networks firewall had been disabled because the bill for the software was not paid, which left the computer vulnerable to the malicious spam.
It was also revealed that the officer who inspected the computer in question failed to test the computer for infections or spyware. Alex Eckelberry, president of a software company commented, That is a blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at the crime scene.
Who conducted this investigation, Deputy Dawg? I could do a better job and I'm definitely not a trained IT professional.
The Nany government is sure trying to convince us that without their style of governing; we the great unwashed masses will go down in doom.
It sounds like this case won't hold up in court, just from what they have admitted. This teacher has a huge lawsuit settlement coming.
This is nore than a little frightening.
She is not yet convicted.
Close all public schools and teach your children yourself. Then re-educate the public school "teachers" and help get them started a new profession.
Just a suggestion.
As i recall, the computer in question was left on all day with porn pop ups doing ther thing all day.
That being said, the "relative harm" is small, however did she alert the Principle? Network ADmin?
Normally these sorts of stories are either loaded to either
A. Make the defendent look depraved.
B. Make the prosecuter look out of control.
I simply cannot tell which is which with this one.
This woman is very likely innocent.
I guess that would depend on the crime scene.
How is this the teacher's fault????
"Who conducted this investigation, Deputy Dawg? I could do a better job and I'm definitely not a trained IT professional."
Indeed. This almost seems malicious. I SERIOUSLY question the competency or motives of anyone who inspected that computer and didn't check for nasty-ware.
Nice. Government strikes again.
Indeed this case should be sumarrily dismissed. If there is any crimial liabilty at all here, it doesn't appear to lie with the teacher, but with whomever is truly responsible for the school systems' computers' security. It's truly shameful, that this teacher has been made the scapegoat. She may indeed have grounds for a lawsuit herself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.