Spirit of the law or letter of the law?

One of the specters that cannot be completely banished from haunting a business such as mine is that of a minor gaining entrance. It would seem to be something that is easily corrected; if a minor walks in the door, stop them, and send them back the way they came. The problem is that since the entire contents of this store are "adult only," laws are in effect. Those laws dictate that anyone under the age of eighteen is not to come into contact with any of it. Therefore, we're in violation as soon as a minor steps over the threshold. Unlike a nightclub, we cannot post someone outside the door to check ID. There is only so much that can be done to keep the contents of the store from being immediately visible from entry. We do what we can and work to remain vigilant. In some ways, we have to depend on authorities recognizing reasonable steps of compliance.

Therein lays the rub. The legal system is not known for being reasonable. Should the political winds shift or someone wants to introduce problems for us, it is conceivable that they could boot-strap a case out of a single minor popping in the door, even if they are immediately told to scurry their little carcasses off the property. On the other hand, anyone who did send a minor into the store would be looking at stiffer penalties than us, after all, they'd be conspiring to violate the law with malice of forethought.

It's still however scant comfort when a story such this comes to light, in this case, a teacher was convicted for allowing students to view pornography on their school computers. Boing Boing touched upon it as well. To summarize from Norwich Bulletin,

Julie Amero, convicted Friday of four counts of risk of injury to a minor, is scheduled to be sentenced March 2 in Norwich Superior Court. She faces a maximum of 40 years in prison.

The crux of the matter seems to be how porn pop-up ads got onto the computer. If it wasn't deliberate on Ms Amero's part, then that opens up a very disturbing precedent. Several points have been brought up in SunbeltBLOG, as well as others. (Forgive me if I refrain from throwing out a litany of links, most of them should be easily found in the articles I have linked.)
Some of those highlights are;

• Expired content filter.
• An expert for the defense testified that spyware could have locked her into a porn pop-up cycle that couldn't be shut off.
• A detective in the investigation "admitted there was no search made for adware, which can generate pop-up advertisements"
• Amero testified that she "reported the problem to at least four teachers and the assistant principal at the school about the problem, but received no help."

Apparently, there are even suggestions that school policy prohibited shutting down the computers (Boing Boing), which is simultaneously a highly plausible administration rule and complication in the event of a sudden high-stress mishap, such as having an unending stream of porn spam suddenly start dominating a computer monitor scrutinized by seventh-graders.

All in all, even though the circumstances are different, the shared thread of pornography is enough to make me wary. Any time children are mentioned in connection with explicit sexuality, it's incredibly inflammatory. Brains shut down, emotions flare, and people can't denounce those who put the two together fast enough or strident enough. It is such a repellant concept that most people NEED to punish someone. Sure, it's possible that she's guilty, but just how easy would it be to throw her onto the pyre of societal scorn rather than possibly consider if there are mitigating circumstances? After all, if they make a conviction, they're "keeping children safe." Otherwise, it just points out weaknesses in the system. Can't have that.

Today, it's porn on the internet. Tomorrow may see folks bringing out the GPS units and maps to find a school or park in the general vicinity of an adult-oriented business to besiege in the name of saving children.