Where is the outrage?

Am I alone or is anyone else disturbed by the acquiescence of the American public to the draconian viciousness of their laws and their enforcement?

In 2004, Julie Amero, a pregnant substitute teacher with apparently no computer skills became yet another victim of popup spyware. We've all been there. The PC randomly and continuously launches popups to sites that are mostly online gambling or porn. Usually something a quick Adaware or Spybot scan will fix. It's happened to you and it's happened to me. The unfortunate circumstances in Julie's case, however, were the place it happened: in class, with 7th graders.

So a few kids noticed and poked fun at her while the poor embarrassed woman frantically tried to close the windows, which, as we know, is just a trigger that spawns more popups. Definitely not one of your best days at work. She went home, glad the day was over.

Stop here. What do you think happened next? What do you think should happen? Try to play the event in your head. Put yourself in her shoes. Put yourself in the kids' shoes. How do you feel about the whole thing? Think about it for a minute.

So what did happen? Julie was arrested and prosecuted for 4.5 years, facing 40 years (four decades) in prison, charged with "risk of injury to a minor". In the process, she lost her baby and suffered a heart attack. She was convicted. She was rescued by a group of computer security experts, who volunteered to demonstrate that spyware was the culprit, something that somehow slipped from the original trial.

Forty years? Risk of injury to a minor? Really? Injury? Forty years?? What planet is this?

And that's not even my point. On trial here is ABC news. Watch the video report. Where is the outrage at the viciousness of the system? She lost her baby and almost died! Everybody strategically skirts around the question of the law's or the prosecution's heavy handedness, like a faithful murder victim's family who let the perpetrator off by attributing it to God's will.

The newspaper journalist, Rick Green, opines that it is "a fascinating glimpse into what can happen to you if you are wrongfully arrested". No, Rick, Windows 7 Beta is a fascinating glimpse. A disgusting disregard for human dignity and civil liberty is a better way to put it.

What scares me most is the overall lack of sense, emotion and critical mindedness in all parties. It resembles the kind of numb resignation and avoidance of real critique you would adopt when talking to a State Trooper that has unfairly pulled you over. You paradoxically muster the self-control to hide your seething anger, forget about it even, under a blanket of excessive politeness for fear of consequences. It's doublethink.

The interviewer is emotionally confounded, as she struggles to decide what sort of emotion she's supposed to pull out of her hat for this one. She settles on a form of disengaged compassion, after presumably ruling out anger, outrage or sincere compassion, lest she show sympathy for a criminal.

But even Julie's own account is the most frightening in its unemotional passivity and self blame. She says a big part of the problem is her poor computer skills. Of course the journalist responds, "well what about the legal system itself? Do you feel that it too is part of the problem?". I'm kidding of course, she said no such thing. When asked what she learned from her ordeal and what advice she has for others, it was to know how to use a computer!

In a brief flash of chilling truth that sums up our current state of submission, she proclaims that "everybody out there should be afraid". Did you get that? Are you ok with it?

So has the State apologised? Compensated her? Is she suing the State back for damages? Is the law being re-examined? Is anyone wondering what kind of "injury" she was charged for? If a 7th grader seeing lewd images is "injury" worthy of 40 year imprisonment, then what is Julie's baby's miscarriage worthy of, and are they being prosecuted for it? Nope. Answering yes to any of those questions would have put the unquestioned authority of the law into question. This is no country for questioning the law.