Teacher Convicted of Exposing Students to Porn

Julie Amero (40), a Connecticut substitute teacher was showing a hair style website to her students, when she clicked a link that inadvertently went to a porn site, displaying pornographic depictions of oral sex.

The principal of the school said that there was no firewall protection because the vendor's bill was unpaid.

Amero faces up to 40 years in prison.

What I want to know is, why wasn't there any anti-spyware/adware and firewall in place? In my opinion, I believe the principal is responsible in part due to the fact that the budget wasn't balanced properly in order to pay the vendor who supplies the software for the school. However, that doesn't mean that Amero is off the hook. What was she doing showing students a hair style website? Unless she was teaching cosmetology or a hair styling class, she had no reason to be showing students those type of sites. Her lack in judgement could unfortunately land her in prison for up to 40 years.

Is 40 years excessive? I think so. So how does one determine what length of time she deserves to serve? What factors are considered when coming to that conclusion?

I believe that Amero should not face any incarceration time, as this was an unfortunate mistake that as even computer consultant Herb Horner testified for the defense that the children had gone to an innocent Web site on hair styles and were redirected to another hairstyle site that had pornographic links. "It can happen to anybody," Horner said.

The defense argued that the images were caused by adware and spyware -- programs that are often secretly planted on computers by Internet businesses to track users' browsing habits. They can generate pop-up ads -- in some cases, pornographic ones. have said in her defense, " ." However, as Mark Steinmetz of the jury stated, "So many kids noticed this going on," Steinmetz said. "It was truly uncalled for. I would not want my child in her classroom. All she had to do was throw a coat over it or unplug it. We figured even if there were pop-ups, would you sit there?" Instead of leaving it on, why didn't she pull the plug or at the very least just turn the monitor off?

"What is extraordinary is the prosecution admitted there was no search made for spyware -- an incredible blunder akin to not checking for fingerprints at a crime scene," Alex Eckelberry, president of a Florida software company, wrote recently in the local newspaper. "When a pop-up occurs on a computer, it will get shown as a visited Web site, and no 'physical click' is necessary."

Smith, the prosecutor, would not say what he plans to recommend when Amero is sentenced March 2. John Newsone, a defense attorney in Norwich familiar with the case, said Amero might be spared prison or face perhaps a year to 18 months.

Principal Scott Fain said the computer lacked the latest firewall protection because a vendor's bill had gone unpaid. "I was shocked to see what made it through," he said.

But Fain also said Amero was the only one to report such a problem: "We've never had a problem with pop-ups before or since."

Amero should be fired as a substitute teacher for that school system and not be allowed to teach again. This may seem harsh, but doesn't going to prison for up to 40 years seem even harsher? Her lack of judgment proves that she doesn't have the common sense needed in order to be in charge of a class of students. I have a right to say this, as I myself am a substitute teacher in my free time.