So I got into a discussion with someone who pointed to the relevant criminal code to support his belief that Julie Amero's conviction was just (although he referenced 53-21(a)(2) instead of what she was charged under... 53-21(a)(1))

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap939.htm#Sec53-21.htm

In short... yep, Prosecutor Smith went after the wrong people.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap939.htm#Sec53-21.htm

53-21(a)(1):
"Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that... the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child..."

Which brings us back to the technology discussion:
"unlawfully" ? The internet browsing may have been against school policy, but doubt it's unlawful - otherwise I'd imagine a large number of us are in violation here (non-work-related internet browsing)

"willfully" ? I guess this is a point of contention... The defense witness found a spyware infestion on the system that dated prior to the incident, which would leave the computer a ticking time bomb waitig to go off. On the other hand, if the spyware on the home PC report is true, I can see this being argued (and possibly link back to "unlawfully"), although I (admittedly reading as a layperson) would probably go with the second clause...

"or does any act likely to impair..."
Now, think of the ramifications of this... Going to the extreme extension of the statute: How many sites have popup (or pop-under) ads? CNN, Washington Post off the top of my head, I'm sure everyone can name several. (actually, ignore this due to next point)
Fact: Malicious code has been found in ads on legitimate websites (which can generate pop-up/unders even if the site itself does not).
Fact: No pop-up blocker is 100% effective.
Fact: No content filter is 100% effective. (If anyone has one that is, they'd be a rich man)
Therefore, there's ALWAYS going to be a chance of getting pop-ups with objectional content. Likely? Probably not, but it depends on how well security software vendors stay on top of things against the hackers.

So, what's the standard for "... [does] any act likely to impair..."? Not sure I want to visit CT to find out

Hmm... you know, now that I've read allof this through, the prosecutor DEFINITELY charged the wrong person, he should've gone after the school IT Manager!
Willfully, by allowing the content filter license to lapse.
Unlawfully, since the school was no longer in compliance with CIPA.
By an act of omission, committed an act likely to impair, since the school IT manager testified he knew about porn sites, popups and spyware.

Yup, at best, the prosecutor forgot to name a few co-defendants in the case... at worst, he totally went after the wrong person.