digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Porn Popup Teacher faces lying yellow journalism from Norwich Bulletin

drumsnwhistles.com — Norwich Bulletin Oozes Intellectual Dishonesty in Amero Case. Quote: "Children were exposed to six hours of Internet pornography under Amero ’s watch." The gist of their editorial states that Julie Amero alone should bear criminal responsibility for porn on school computer. The Bulletin twists the facts & ignores reality of the trial.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -1/+118Direct link: http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070318/OPINION01/703180325

    Especially of interest: "Whether Amero was purposefully exploring pornographic Web sites, or was the victim of a technological assault, is irrelevant."

    So if some anonymous hacker (call this person "me" just to give him a name) were to maliciously control your computer to distribute porn to every single minor in the country, it'd be your fault, right? Excellent.
    • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41while articles like these are fantastic for Amero and definitely help her case, continuing to call her the porn popup teacher definitely does not.
    • Battleloser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+48www.askjolene.com

      You kids these days are lucky. You don't know how hard it was to find decent free porn when I was a kid.
    • StickyShoez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The title of this article is really awkward to read.
    • nexus420, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1all the editor is saying is that she failed to use common sense and turn off the monitor or cover it up. If, as the article claims, she also failed to mention that it was porn that was popping up, she deserves some of the blame. She shouldn't have allowed it to go on all day. The editorial also says they just dont want her teaching anymore, not jail time. I have to agree.
    • haveacigar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16This is so stupid. It says "Pornographic sites should never have been able to appear on that school computer. The fact the school's protection against these sites was outdated falls firmly in the lap of the school district."

      It was (from what i remember) on a laptop... so it was stored locally, yet it opened in an internet browser... have these people never heard of a virus?

      Why dont they get someone who knows how to turn a computer on without shouting "Burn the witch, Save the children" to represent them.
    • loveandrockets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19She said the substitutes are told not to touch anything or they will get fired. I've temped at these kinds of places before where if you even look at a computer you would get fired immediately. She was told not to touch the computer, she didn't, she went and asked for help, they said "don't worry about it" and now she's going to jail.

      The county is full of clueless asses.
    • haveacigar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27Another stupid thing... in England you get 25 years for murder. In America you get 40 for popups.
  • dominasian, on 10/12/2007, -17/+13who hasn't seen porn by that age?
    • rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -29/+7Uh, *raises hand* I still have not.
    • toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -18/+10your missing out
    • rnwen2750, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1? Maybe so. I guess I just do not see the point. :)
    • deadlychicken, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5probably because it's inside her.
  • mstrike, on 10/12/2007, -30/+5I've been making the bald man spit to elicit images since age 7 when I found my father's "holy shrine" underneath his underwear in the dresser.
    • jcapogna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+201) You're a liar
      2) If thats the best thing you can think of to brag about, I feel very sorry for you.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2the bald man elicits images???
    • halfabean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"illicit" and "elicit" are 2 totally different things ...
  • linux69, on 10/12/2007, -49/+1This was my 7th grade Language Arts class, and although I was absent that day some of my friends (one of which testified) were talking about it the next day, and based on what they said, she was totally checking out porn in class. They also said she went to the bathroom like twice each period
    • TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2Probably to check her AFF profile.
    • pwill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I think you're a liar.
    • djbelieve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Sounds like troll-bait to me. Have any other "facts" to back up that statement?
    • loudintl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Kids sensationalize things among themselves worse than any media and they love it. I was eagerly informed that my own sister was pregnant and had AIDS in school by some kid that didn't realize I was related to her.
    • linux69, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The teacher is Mr. Napp, he was room 27, we wore glasses and had a mustache. Other teachers in his group that year were Mr. Friedman, Mrs. Weaver, and Mrs. Ferland. His nickname in college was "skippy"

    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7What about Mrs Palm and her 5 sexy daughters?? Were they there too?
    • Leviathan777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Anyone believe that "linux69" is a 7th grader? Or whatever? A linux-user with a sexually suggestive number in the username?

      I don't.

      Quit lying, *****.
  • ThreeDee912, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The article is totally twisting the facts around. I'm not going to bother mirroring the article as a comment so we can make the site overload from the Digg effect.
  • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27People who think it's irrelevant that she didnt purposefully look at the porn have absolutely no idea how the internet works.

    I bet this guy clicks on every "Your system may be infected with spyware! Click here!" banner that pops up, and then, when his computer runs slow, he blames "the damn internets" for not working, and thinks that the magical elves running the system are lazy, and thats why his tubes arent bringing his emails faster.
  • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51"Let's assume for a moment that Amero was, in fact, the victim of a technical problem. What if the issue wasn't a technical problem? "

    Wow... that's quite a short moment. Let's assume for a moment this guy is a competent writer. This guy is not a competent writer.
    • linux69, on 10/12/2007, -22/+2Way to take things out of context daybreaker,

      "Let's assume for a moment that Amero was, in fact, the victim of a technical problem. What if the issue wasn't a technical problem? What if the problem was a racy magazine? Would she leave it open all day on her desk and push students away if they came to take a look, or would she close the magazine and put it away?"
    • calbff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@linux69
      This spastic attempt at journalism is pretty pathetic in any context.
    • truguyanese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@linux69

      Are you retarded?
      For that to even make sense, the mag. would have to be thrown into the classroom and begin flying around evading the teacher.
    • linux69, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1@truguyanese

      Maybe I am, because your statement doesn't make any sense.
    • truguyanese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@linux69

      Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, and if that's the case, I apologize. However, from my perspective, you are comparing apples and oranges. A porn pop-up is a spontaneous and in her situation [given the fact that the school board's filtering is lax] unavoidable action caused by the intent of advertisers, exploiters, etc. Yes, she can close the pop-up, but more likely then not, due to the fact that the computer had no anti-virus', popup blockers, or even a firewall, the obvious situation is that maleware infested the PC. As a result, periodic porn advertisements appear on the screen, out of the control of the teacher. The teacher then did what she could and that was to bar the students from the computer.

      In your example of a mag. on the desk, you imply that SHE, with her own free will, brought in or produced the offending material, and that even after acknowledging its presence, she left it in such a fasion that it was in plain view to everyone, and that all she did was ask that people don't look at it.

      The two analogies are very diffrent and don't repersent the situation in a true fashion to be used.
    • farzadb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@linux69

      Let's spin another view. What if there were nudists outside the classroom windows and the windows had no blinds. Would she still be held criminally liable ?
    • truguyanese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5No? Honnestly, she would not be held criminally liable, as there is nothing that could possibly do? Maybe should could chase them away, but not being a police officer, she could be held for assault. She could tell the children to look away, but thats not pratical, how could she inforce that.
    • truguyanese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5*enforce

      She could stand in front of the window, but even then she's only a single body to block the view of all the children. All she could do in that situation is call upon the help of others and try to resolve the situation. There is nothing she can do at the immediate moment that would do any good. What was done was done.
    • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6no, linux69 was right. I did take it out of context.

      But it was for purely comedic reasons. Whereas the author of this article is taking things out of context in order to ruin someone's life.
    • Cirieno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ truguyanese

      Just a note but: you've not pointed out that you realise Linux69's "magazine" statements were a direct quote from the article. You did read the article, in full, before commenting?
  • ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3lying?

    yup, your dumb ass was in the class room to present a whole ton of fact, right?
  • pjhurst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7It is a travesty how journalists are either completely ignorant due to their utter gullibility of what they read or they are total hacks towing the line for the entrenched powers. It's hard to tell in my opinion.
  • Ibanezfoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Well these lines prove that the author was a pillar of the journalism community and most likely a super genious: "Let's assume for a moment that Amero was, in fact, the victim of a technical problem. What if the issue wasn't a technical problem?"

    Ok... we will assume she is a victim of a technical problem... oh no wait, now lets change it real quick and think its not a technical problem.... Who the hell writes like this? You can't set up a situation and then totally ditch it for something else in the same paragraph. What a hack....
    • linux69, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1What he was trying to point out was that she should have done something besides just ignoring the problem, even if it wasn't her fault
    • truguyanese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6But the thing is that she DID try to do something. She bar'd the students from the computer when she found out. She seeked help because this was something that she didn't know how to deal with. I know many good, briliant teachers out there who do care about students but even they can't foresee certain situations. Sometimes what we percieve as simple situations are much more involving for others. I've had a client who was afraid of turning off their computer, because of how people misuse the word "reboot" (in reality it means to restart a computer, but many also use the word to discribe the act of reformating a harddrive).
  • antdude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1http://72.14.253.104/search?hs=sUq&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fdrumsnwhistles.com%2Fcategory%2Fnews%2Fjulie-amero%2F&btnG=Search
  • galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That journalist should instead write how ridiculous it is to have laws against showing pornography to anybody, including children. Making information a crime. This is borderline freedom of speech.

    Dismissal because Porn has no place in school, I can understand, but making it a felony???
  • tallguy240, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ok - I gotta just say that unless these news writers are computer experts or at least can give an educated...hell even a semi educated opinion or counterpoint then they go into the idiot category with dumb ass police detective and their words mean dick. Unfortunately most of the readership most likely falls into the idiot category as well and will probably believe the drivel this butt nugget is spewing. I would hope that someone rebuts the article and makes him look like a moron. We'll see.
  • Linh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So, did she tell her colleagues that the pop ups were porn, or did she just say pop ups?

    And what exactly is this "subs no touch" rule... is it an unwritten rule? Before, I was reading she was specifically told not to touch the computer... seems that was incorrect.. she just blanked and didn't try to turn off the monitor.

    regardless, the worst she should be charged for might be technical negligence and lack of a little common sense. But this case needs to be throw out. It's utterly ridiculous.
  • BOFH2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5some letters from the community

    http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070323/OPINION03/703230315/1014/NEWS17

    http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070320/OPINION03/703200335/1014/NEWS17

    There are some people our there who at least side with her.

  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I think no one has stopped to ask the obvious question... WHY would she want to subject these kids to porn on purpose? Under what theory are they operating? She's some wanna-be child molester who gets off on watching kids look at soft-core internet spyware porno? I don't get it at all. This is a perfect example where the most obvious (and in this case, innocent) story is probably the truth. Unless they have some other evidence she does this on purpose (and they don't) there's no reason to believe it was anything more than a mistake.

    I am from the area, the Norwich Bulletin is considered an absolute joke. It's full of spelling and grammar errors on almost a daily basis. They just reprint a bunch of AP stories -- they do virtually no real reporting. If you want any real coverage of this story look at the New London Day or the Hartford Courant which are real, respectable, papers in the area.
    • Marvelboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I was just about to comment about how laughable the Norwich Bulletin is, I believe I was told in High School that it was written on a fifth grade level. Even then I thought that was optimistic.

      Oh, and it's terrible what happened to this poor teacher and I would like to say that not everybody in the state of Connecticut is completely technologically illiterate.
  • kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i like how only three people have voted for anything other than "she should not be charged/found guilty" on the poll next to the article
  • spyderfreek2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Being a Norwich CT resident, I for one can vouch that the bulletin is a P.O.S. newspaper, inside and out. My cat won't even piss on it, it stinks of Sh*t so bad. As for the Sub, her story has more holes in it than Paris Hilton, who may have or may not have been on the screen during this incident. The whole ordeal was not harmful for anyone, end of story. No kids were scared, no lives ruined, well except for Julie Amero, in a way i pity her. And well, school isn't that long cant the porn wait?

    Innocent or guilty, I think this whole thing is way to big of a deal.
  • kufu91, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9sorry for the double post but i just read this part, "The boys have gone to a website featuring teenage hairstyles. Soon, though, the computer will be automatically redirected to an endless stream of 2-inch by 2-inch pornographic "pop-up" windows."
    shouldn't they be arresting the boys for their heinous crime?
  • Haydre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As a member of the City of Norwich, CT, I will say that when looking for an honest, balanced reading of the news, no one around here looks to the Norwich Bulletin. It is a poor excuse for a newspaper, and the fact that it is receiving this much attention will only increase its already deluded reader base.

    Edit: Heh, see spyderfreek2k's post, we can't both be wrong, if only I had seen his post a moment earlier...
    • Starch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. What has the New London Day written about this whole ordeal?
  • phenolholic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1why cant my teachers had been like these waves of teachers in the news these days. i'd bang just about anyone [female] these days, a teacher is a fetish
  • PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The most amusing bit is the children being exposed to porn for six hours bit. Did these kids form a conga line through the halls to view this particular computer?

  • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1My 10 games (from when I was young, and they're still the most memorable) :

    Mobius - Origin Software
    Jill of the Jungle + Xanadau + KiloBlaster + Solar Winds - Epic Megagames
    Ultima 5 : Warriors of Destiny - Origin Software
    Commander Keen + Doom - ID Software
    Starcraft - Blizzard Games
    Quake - ID Software

    Without these games in the PC world, most anythggn else would NOT have happened. Note I said *PC* world.
  • lingyai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This case is such a joke.
    Look at this from the hardford courant:

    Shortly before the trial began in January, Amero refused an offer of "accelerated rehabilitation" - to the dismay of Smith.

    "He walks up to me. `You better think about taking AR or you are going to spend 18 years in jail,'" Amero recalls.


    Smith is the prosecutor.
    Yes he threatened her with 18 years in prison because some kids saw a few porn pictures of a couple seconds.
    This guy needs to lose his job.
    http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-julieamero.artmar25-col,0,1404311.column?page=4&coll=hc-utility-home
  • waynemr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope all of you people claiming to be from Norwich, CT show up at the sentencing in support of Amero and against this travesty of justice. I also hope all of you make it a point of never again purchasing anything from any company that advertises with the Norwich Bulletin.
  • Henwood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Whilst it isn't fair on the teacher, it was stupid of her not to just turn off her monitor/ computer, particularly if it was happening all day.
  • Quag7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Hi. I'm a modern American. And I *fear* copulation. We have to protect the kids, from knowing that people, you know, tend to copulate. Because this would be a horror that would destroy the minds of our youth. We have seen methamphetamine, gangs, suicide...but what really threatens young generations is copulation.

    Well I mean, it offends me. By which I mean, it doesn't really offend me. It might offend someone else though. And that's why I step up to protect people from graphic images of copulation, because it might shock, disturb, and otherwise ruin the perfect track record of mental sanitation that is our modern culture.

    Most of all we must consider the effect that photos of, say, oral copulation, might have on children. They could go into anaphylactic shock at just the idea. Through our efforts, we can ensure that our young people will not engage in sex, or, barring that, won't enjoy it. Because the only kind of sex that is worth anything is that which is a product of fear and ignorance. Icky. Icky icky icky I tell you.

    We need to raise our children to have the courage and moral rectitude to have the confidence to send future generations into foreign wars to protect our way of life, which does not include copulation. Well it does, but it's just for reproduction, you understand. We try hard not to enjoy it. We do our best. It's like going to church, really.

    In the face of possible ecological catastrophe, nuclear terrorism, criminal violence, drug addiction, disease, pestilence, and economic ruin, we can rest safely tonight in the knowledge that at vert least, our children are not exposed to titties.

    And that's what's important.
  • Dustin00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This poor woman has to wait another month to be cleared of these charges?

    The incompetancy just keeps growing.
  • Cogita, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Very strange. I'm surprised.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.