Mary Landesman has an outrageous column on About.com essentially arguing for why Julie Amero should have been convicted. As best as I can tell, her premise is that when faced with the possibility of leaving the offending material on the screen (she was clicking those popups closed as fast as her mouse finger would let her) or defying district policy and turning the computer off, she should have opted for defiance.
She completely misses the part of Section 53-21 of Connecticut law which uses the terms “…willfully or unlawfully causes…”. Although Landesman acknowledges that malware could have been responsible for the popups (which would clearly not fall under the definition of willful or unlawful behavior on Amero’s part), she seems to argue that the willful or unlawful act was failing to turn the computer off. Utter hogwash, which is how I feel about most of About.com’s content anyway. (via The Zero Boss)
To cleanse your palate after reading her crap, pay a visit to Frank Krasicki’s blog, Region 19 BOE Gazette. That link goes to his posts tagged Julie Amero, where you will find some incredibly eye-opening analysis and facts about this case. His latest is here, and should leave you with a greater understanding of what Julie Amero is and isn’t. You’ll definitely understand that she isn’t someone who willfully or unlawfully causes harm to children.
Post your comment or track back to my post by 2PM PDT 2/20/2007 and I will add a dollar to Julie Amero’s defense fund
Technorati Tags: Julie Amero, About.com, Frank Krasicki, Mary Landesman
