Is the world more insane than usual, or is it just me? In quick succession, I saw a pair of stories on Slashdot that made my eyebrows achieve heights Olympic pole vaulters can only dream of.

Take, for example, the story of Julie Amero, a 40 year old substitute teacher in Norwich Connecticut. On October 19th, 2004, she was subbing for a seventh grade language class when her computer became infested with pornographic pop-ups, which were in turn seen by many of the students. She was found guilty on four counts of risk of injury to a minor, or impairing the morals of a child, for which she could face a maximum sentence of 40 years in prison.

Now, there’s some dispute as to whether or not Amero clicked on any of the links in question; the prosecutor claimed that she did, while Amero said that “The pop-ups never went away…The computer was completely covered with pornography.” Having seen my fair share of spyware-infested computers in my days of IT working, the situation that Amero describes is totally plausible. Why didn’t she unplug the computer, as the prosecutor also asked? Sometimes we just don’t necessarily think of the right response at the time. Amero claimed that she received no help from four other teachers or the school’s assistant principal, all of whom were notified of the issue, and the school’s filtering software, which should have blocked the images, had apparently expired.

But my biggest problem with this case is that the punishment seems grossly out of proportion to the crime. Yes, if Amero deliberately clicked on the links (and I’m not even saying deliberately showed them to the minors), I could understand if her job were at stake. And had she molested the children in some way, I think the response would probably have been reasonable. But to send someone to prison for forty years for porn? Seriously? Does anyone else remember being a seventh grader? Had you really not seen naked people by that point? Nowadays, seventh graders aren’t just seeing pictures of naked men and women; they’re actively engaging in sexual activities. I’m not saying that excuses exposing minors to pornography, but I do think it suggests that our priorities are perhaps not where they should be.

Meanwhile, in a school district outside of Seattle, another issue—perhaps even more contentious than pornography—has arisen: global warming. Upon learning that his daughter would be watching An Inconvenient Truth in science class, a parent complained:

“Condoms don’t belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He’s not a schoolteacher,” said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. “The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. … The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”

This led to a school board member suggesting a moratorium on the film until a “credible, legitimate opposing view” could be presented alongside, which is school district policy for contentious issues.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with presenting alternative view points. Students should always be encouraged to think for themselves, to try and consider what are the weaknesses in a particular theory or interpretation; imagine if we took advertising or statistics at face value. There are still some scientists (albeit an apparently dwindling number) skeptical of global warming, and if there is merit to their objections, they ought to be acknowledged and discussed. The wonderful thing about science is that it’s not dogma.

That said, Hardison and his wife appear to be less concerned with education than with propaganda.

“From what I’ve seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of ‘bad America, bad America,’ I don’t think it should be shown at all,” Gayle Hardison said. “If you’re going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don’t think the video should be shown.”

I was heartened to see that students seemed to be in favor of seeing the movie; after all, if global warming is accurate, they’ll be the ones dealing with the consequences. And really, could informing kids that we need to take care of the environment hurt?

We talk a lot about the responsibilities of parents when it comes to raising a child, but what do you do when parents’ choices are themselves ill-informed? Does it become up to the society at large to decide what’s best for the child, and, if so, how? And if society itself becomes, as it seems to have, dominated by a vocal minority, how do you appeal to a higher power for that?