What is Digg?168 Comments
- wwwdot1jesdotus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+221It's about time. The whole thing was ridiculous in the first place.
- screamthenrun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+149wait... a "new trial"... this thing won't be over until the whole thing is thrown out of court....
- unknamed, on 10/11/2007, -1/+133This will not be satisfactory until the whole thing is thrown out and she receives a huge settlement from the school. Oh, and some people need to lose their jobs as well.
- xXShadowstormXx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+128GOOD.
I can't believe how stupid some people running our country are. People who do not understand technology should not be writing laws governing it. - RexKwando, on 10/11/2007, -1/+114What a ***** waste of my tax money on an obvious (unlucky!) coincidence.
Plus, 40 years?! Who the hell posed that sentence? I think the spammer should have to face that sentence. Certainly not the teacher. This really shows the priorities of our country. Those who make money doing questionable activities = good. Teachers, the ones who influence and teach our nation's children = obviously bad by the looks of this trial. I'm outta here.
How long does it take to get naturalized in Australia? - ComeOutSwingin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+79Let's say it was on purpose, how is showing porn to middle school children worth 40 years in prison?
- joshua5, on 10/11/2007, -0/+71How rarely these things actually turn out the way they should. This is very good news that farce of a trial is being redone.
- renegadeafk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+71You can get away with Rape or manslaughter for less time than that, Our legal system is ***** up.
- chrisbosh123, on 10/11/2007, -5/+56How old were the kids...? If they were 15+, then why is she even going to jail for something the kids do already?
- IllBeBack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4340 years? Just for showing it?
Oh, c'mon... 40 years?!
Must be an election year for a DA or something. - ElliotShoe, on 10/11/2007, -2/+42It's because so many people still think we're #1, the best nation in the world; they're just riding off of the other generations' hard work.
That and Judges who don't understand what the internets is. - jasmin888, on 10/11/2007, -6/+44Good! Though the American justice system seems so unbelievably strange - more like the middle ages. Really strange when viewed from a democracy.
- thenativeraver, on 10/11/2007, -5/+41Adblock FTW!
- Hananda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31"People who do not understand technology should not be writing laws governing it".
Mm, I agree, but really, this isn't about understanding technology or not. It's about pandering to the "They're corrupting our children!!!" voters. - bsiviglia9, on 10/11/2007, -3/+34Would this sort of "trial" ever happen in a "free and open society"?
- sezzme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+29Any legal eagles out there? If she is found not guilty this time, can she sue the school district and probably win?
What about the clueless cop who provided the false evidence that convicted her in the first place? - CaseyUCF, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28***** I was watching porn at 12(7th grade) anyways.
- leth4l, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25they can charge for each child that was "affected".
Basically...they can get her on like 20-30 individual charges of harming a minor. Run each count consecutive and BINGO...40 years = totally retarded. - kaelyiesta, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26I wouldn't even sentence her to 40 hours of jail time let alone 40 years. How could anyone find naked bodies to be that harmful to look at? It isn't as if she grabbed kids and forced them to look. FSM help my 5th grade science teacher if anyone finds out he showed us a video of childbirth... They'd kill him right on the spot.
- Snarfy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25The prosecution should be disbarred (let alone lynched). There is no excuse!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23Just plain ironic.
- SbooX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21I think that may have been a rhetorical question.
- insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23Just plane dumb. Even if this was on purpose, it's just porn. Sickos that physically mess with kids get less than 40 years.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18I can't believe the prosecution's computer "expert" wasn't much of a computer person himself AND they wouldn't let that other expert testify that she was completely innocent...it makes you wonder about a lot things when it comes to trials in this country.
- Yage2006, on 10/11/2007, -2/+19The fact she even has to go to trial for this shows how messed up the USA is.
You'd think the taliban was running the country. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21This is middle school... 6-8th grade. Most 15 year olds in that school would've probably been in the special program.. and I think she needs to get a huge settlement from the State, the people who prosecuted her, not the schools. The town is having enough problems as it is. As the host town for thousands of casino workers, this town of 38,000 has students in its K-8 system who speak over 30 different languages at home. The last thing we need is a huge multimillion dollar settlement draining the town even more when it can barely manage to pay for new roads and is struggling to put its students through school.
- faithhealer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Governments have the final say over who they prosecute for crimes. Victims can press charges or drop charges, but that does not obligate the government to prosecute or drop a prosecution.
If anyone should be at fault here, it should be the school for not having a popup blocker or filtering software. - bondfreak05, on 10/11/2007, -6/+22If they had used Firefox, this wouldn't have ever happened.
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16"So you're telling me that the internet tubes don't really exsist?"
Not any longer they are replacing it with a series of trucks. - jasmin888, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20@bsiviglia
"Would this sort of "trial" ever happen in a "free and open society"?"
No! - Darmichar, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16I'd like to see it taken a step further and allow her or the State to sue the advertiser that ultimately provided pornography to minors.
- clackerd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+19idiot laws written by old white protestant men from the 1930's? that would be my guess.
- VSKBadCRC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14It's embarrassing that this case has gone on for as long as it has...
My favorite quote from the article:
"A school official did tell parents, however, that the school district had comprehensive filtering and firewall software in place at the time."
Well if it's comprehensive, what's the ***** problem? - ps3udov3ctor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16in america ANYTHING pertaining to sex should absolutely be outlawed except sex in marriage for procreation only (missionary position only, NO BJs either, and don't even think of looking at her arse), because sex is just so dirty and unnatural.
- Skanadian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Kids started to suck when they started getting pumped with meds to solve all their problems.
- candylandviper, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I have firefox, and porn is always popping up on my computer...
I have no problem with my computer I just have a tendency to click on a lot of porn. - DonCarcharo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I read a story the other day about a man who was accused of raping his niece who was about 7 years old. The incident happened at night in her bedroom with the lights out after she was woken from a sound sleep. The man was convicted without any physical evidence and despite the fact that he had a fairly solid alibi. He was convicted because the girl said, "I think it was my uncle".
So a few years pass with this guy in jail and they do a DNA test. It turns out that the DNA left at the scene didn't belong to him. Instead it belongs to the convicted child molester living next door to the girl (imagine that). Needless to say the uncle petitions for a new trial. The problem? They deny it. Why? At the time of the original trial DNA probably wouldn't have been relevant (it was in the late 90s).
Talk about a screwed up legal system. It seems that if the crime has anything remotely to do with "protecting the children" we throw out all logic and act with instinct alone. Thankfully for the uncle in this story he did eventually get out. But it took seven years, demonstrations and people going public with the story. And frankly I think that's what's on the teacher's side in this case. The public knows how silly this is so it's going to be very difficult to convict her without some sort of outcry. - GodsDragon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12.... most ppl dont even get 40 years in prison for killing someone so why the hell is some unlucky teacher
getting blamed because of some porn pop ups! you cant surf the net nowadays without running into some site with those pop ups I think this case should be thrown out of court and she should get a large settlement. - GGzah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Back when I was in Highschool out teacher for European Geography showed us National Lampoons European vacation for a laugh on the second last day of school. He covered up the nudie parts, but watched them for himself. We all laughed as it was a total joke and a fun way to kill the last couple days of the school year.
That was about 15 years ago. Today it appears he would have gotten 40 years in prison. School today must suck. - rarson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10When did kids start to suck? When I was in middle school, if that type of stuff happened, you'd laugh about it and tell your friends... and then deny it to any adult that asked you about it.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10It, apparently, wasn't comprehensive enough!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The school DID have such filters, just their lazy IT guy hadn't updated or set them up properly.
As I tell my clients, the only thing worse than not having AV software, is having non-updated AV software. - asuteke, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12It's totally the fault of the local prosocutors' office. The charges should never had been brought, given that this was not even her fault. She left the room and found them looking at porn pop-ups. Any idiot would realize that the kids obviously went to the wrong website and found themselves deluged by pop-ups. She then did the right thing, given her lack of computer knowledge, and got help to solve the problem. I don't really see the problem here. If anybody is at fault, it is the district for not installing pop-up blocking software. And possibly the kids for not growing a pair and saying what really went down.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10If any of you are interested, you might want to write a letter to the editor (200 words or less) of the local paper. Letters@norwichbulletin.com
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/NEWS01/70606018 - Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Not anymore it isn't.
- cojerk, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Pics or it didn't..
oh forget it. - leth4l, on 10/11/2007, -6/+12"People who do not understand technology should not be writing laws governing it."
So you're telling me that the internet tubes don't really exsist?
pppffttttt - astanhope, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Drop the case, Prosecutor! Why waste the time and money on a retrial? It's ***** ridiculous and YOU know it as does everyone else. What sort of attorney general's office is being run there in Connecticut? Don't you have genuine, unambiguous criminal acts to pursue? Who do you think this crazed prosecution is benefiting? Leave this poor woman alone!
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@sam991
Homeland Security would like a word with you...in an undisclosed location. -
Show 51 - 100 of 166 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is