Risk of Injury to a Minor == Stupid Law
I have been getting just as furious as paperghost lately over the whole Julie Amero case. By now you've all heard about it, a substitute teacher was surfing the internet and then bombarded with porn advertisements she couldn't get away. People debate her initial reactors and the woulda/coulda/shoulda's. I think she just paniced and didn't know what to do, and when people panic, they don't always think straight or rationally. She could have "pulled the plug," or "thrown her coat over the monitor" or something stuipdly ridiculous like that... Or she was just trying to close all the pop ups like so many of us are accostomed too. Who the hell knows?
My point about this entire incident, is her actual criminal offense, convicted on 4 counts of "risk of injury to a minor." What risk of injury to a minor?! Are you kidding me? These were seventh graders, who have been secretly browsing their father's Playboy's, Hustler tapes, and going to sites like sex.com when their parents aren't around. How do I know, you ask? I was once a seventh grader and I had many other friends who did one of the three above. Let's not be hypocrites here now, don't tell me you never were "curious" and clicked on 18+ when you weren't. There were no injuries, and no risk of injuries, especially to a minor. Give me a f-ing break!
Laws in America need to be revised, and if people haven't seen that yet with this case, I am beginning to lose all hope.
blog comments powered by Disqus