Proposed Maryland bill would criminalize love letters

[tristan]

Michael,

Your work for the cause of reason and logic (and in expressing our views with moderation) has been invaluable, and readers should know that you have pushed this cause farther in a shorter time than any of us have done previously.  You and Batman have been able to communicate effectively with a wide range of politicians in your home state of Maryland and you have, and are, influencing them positively. 

If Dave Root is the George Washington of this movement, then you are the Thomas Jefferson.

[bronxman]

Awareness for the general public:

www.furbat.com

Yesterday at 2pm there were hearings in both chambers to discuss the "marriage broker" bills.

Hearings:

Perhaps they all decided that its a good idea to actually comprehend what they were pushed into supporting. Maybe they also read about trafficking in MD through social networking sites:

www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1901426

And here goes another article:

Regulating Dating Sites - Latest News
by - Amber Watson

ANNAPOLIS, Md. - There could be some new restrictions for Maryland residents who interact on dating websites if some lawmakers have their way.

With just a simple click on the internet, you can socialize with nearly anyone around the world, but the instant connection on some websites may soon be censored in Maryland. A proposed bill would require criminal and marital background checks on selected sites of those wanting to view profiles and engage in online dating. "If I were to go on a web page like that I think that would be absolutely appropriate," said Trevor Ewing, a student at Salisbury University.

We're living in a time when many people use social networking sites, some say being forced to have a background check would be a violation of privacy.

Delegate Jeannie Haddaway, supports the bill and says it only affects sites that work as marriage brokers. She says the sites often arrange international marriages, leaving some trapped in abusive relationships. She says the sites could even possibly leading to human trafficking.

The CEO of A Foreign Affair, John Adams has operated an online dating site since 1995. The site www.loveme.com focuses on international couples. Adams says the legislation has serious flaws. "This is 2010, virtually all dating sites have an international component many with more international members than our site. The world is much smaller now than ever before and people will communicate with each other no matter where they live, to force them to undergo criminal background checks is very burdensome and goes against everything our county stands for." Adams believes anyone wanting to avoid background checks would just go to another site or even mainstream networking sites.

"People going into these certain sites should know that this could happen and be able to take the steps on their own. Even background checks can't really prevent those certain situations," said Amanda Miele, a student at Salisbury University.

Some say if this bill is passes it could just be a matter of time before all social websites are affected.

The bill cleared the House in February and has now moved to the Senate. A hearing date has not been scheduled yet.

http://www.wmdt.com/news-archive.aspx?item=5249

Well, no matter what the outcome is for these laws in MD, they sure are bringing the discussion into the mainstream and very out in the open. And with all those social networking sites taking on the foreign market, it will become more challenging for the feminists to isolate the sites they so despise. It might actually be easier to push the regulation on all sites as means to getting more support to stop the law rather than attempting to repeal it directly without help.


.

[batmanrr]

This is very good news!

http://www.wmdt.com/news-archive.aspx?item=5249

[batmanrr]

Look at the comments here!
This is very interesting!
Fro her back yard!
http://charmcitycurrent.com/haddaway/2010/01/06/international-marriage-brokers/#comment-407

[mparrotte]

Marc H. Rudov, globally known author, radio/TV personality, and men's rights advocate, opined thusly: "The US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, confers upon American citizens certain protections from tyranny: presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from self-incrimination. Not only does Maryland's HB65 deny Americans all such protections, it unilaterally transfers them to foreigners. What would George Washington say? The sole purpose of Maryland's nonsense is to help radical feminists bash men who prefer non-American women. The solution is to kill these bills, period. Not dilution, not modification, not amendment. Just kill them altogether."

[bugman7]

As the firestorm of controversary swirls around the Maryland law I decided to tactfully send Delegate Haddaway- Riccio a nice letter. Although the law has an ostensible purpose it has a bunch of loopholes larger than a whales mouth can swallow.

Here is what I wrote to her yesterday....

Greetings Delegate Jeannie Haddaway- Riccio:
 
I would like to provide some follow up information to my rather brief response yesterday on the subject of the proposed bill to Regulate Marriage Brokers, HB 65.
 
Since you appear to be leading a campaign for its passage, I would like to provide some insights to broaden the horizon on this issue. 
 
The stated purpose of the bill to protect foreign women from potentially abusive men is an ostensible goal. However, It's my perception that your bill is too narrowly focused towards protecting a very small number of mostly foreign women, some foreign men. Realistically, ask yourself how many Maryland citizens will be using a "marriage broker" to met foreigners. The number is very small, and besides that, any sleazy criminal could circumvent the law's provisions, so the law doesn't appear to protect anybody.
 
More importantly the law does not provide any protection for Maryland women residents, and may in fact increase vulnerability of Maryland women who use dating sites to meet foreign men. Consider the possibility of a Maryland woman who provides her personal information to a foreign man from the Middle East who steals her identity. Even worse he might be a dangerous criminal and she wouldn't know this because the law provides criminal information to the foreigner- not to a Maryland woman resident. Is this really fair to the men and women residents of MD?
 
 Also the law doesn't appear to provide protection for gay Maryland men and women residents either. Will the law address future changes such as gay marriages being accepted by USCIS? The law is also meeting some stiff opposition from a lot of Maryland men also.
 
In order for the law to attract more support the drafters of the law should consider providing protection to everybody, rather than just a few International daters who are angry and kicking up such a fuss because they feel like they are being singled out like a political unpopular group.
 
At any rate, I just wanted to provide some additional thoughts on this issue.
 
Thanks for hearing me out,

[bronxman]

Since early January, these proposed laws have become a heavy drag on the Maryland House and Senate. At this point, is it really worth the effort? After all, it is not their fight and Maryland residents receive no benefit. The Tahirih organization needs this law; the Maryland lawmakers clearly do not. The anticipated campaign funds and other favors cannot match the painful lesson learned from taking sides with the self serving feminist special interest groups. It took two months to make that obvious. Mud on your face, TJC.

Hearings were shown on the schedule to have occurred on March 3. Now they are not shown on the schedule. They were removed and no future date is scheduled. see

http://mlis.state.md.us/2010RS/hearsch/0225_fin.htm

Moving on...

It was noted last year here:

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1802.0

That the Center of Womens Policy Studies was quite tardy in their reporting. The last fact sheet was from December 2008 as shown here

http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/documents/FactSheetonStateAntiTraffickingLawsDecember2008.pdf

At that time, there were politicians sticking their necks out supporting various bills, as listed below. We are awaiting a fresh list. Since other state lawmakers will learn about what is happening in Maryland, that list may never materialize.

International Marriage Brokers/International Matchmaking Organizations (IMOs)

Hawaii
HB 135 Sponsors: Representatives Lee, Sonson, Arakaki, Luke, Morita, Leong,
Karamatsu, Abinsay, Shimabukuro, Thielen, Ching, Kawakami, Marumoto, Finnegan,
Kahikina, Hale, Pendleton.
Companion bill SB 875 Sponsors: Senators Chun Oakland, Baker, Fukunaga.
HB 2050 Sponsors: Representatives Lee, Arakaki, Berg, Cabanilla, Caldwell,
Chang, Ching, Evans, Finnegan, Hale, Kawakami, Luke, Marumoto, Meyer, Morita,
Shimabukuro, Thielen, Tsuji, Stevens.
Companion bill SB 2142 Sponsors: Senators Chun, Oakland, Fukunaga.

Missouri
HB 353 Sponsors: Representatives Lipke, Page, J. Brown, Nieves.
SB 437 (amendment to HB 353) Sponsor: Senator Bray.

Texas
HB 177 Sponsors: Representatives McCall, Castro. Senator West.

Washington
SB 6412 Sponsors: Senators Kohl-Welles, Costa, Prentice, Winsley, Long, Keiser,
Benton.
Related bill HB 2667 Sponsors: Representatives Veloria, Darneille, Haigh, Delvin,
Tokuda, Chase, Santos.
HB 1826 Sponsors: Representatives Veloria, McMahan, O’Brien, Kenney, Boldt,
Mielke, Santos, Hudgins, Upthegrove, Simpson, Conway.
Companion bill SB 5532 Sponsors: Senators Kohl-Welles, Benton, Fraser, Prentice,
Carlson, Keiser, Winsley, Schmidt.

[tristan]

Yet another reason Match.com would be subject to the MD law by charging different genders different fees (I am guessing all the alleged ringers in this story are women.)

REUTERS -- June 9 -- Sean McGinn, of Brooklyn sued Match.com for misleading members by posting profiles of prospective dates who are unable to respond to any interest in them because they do not have a paid subscription. McGinn accused Match.com of causing "humiliation and disappointment" for some members who feel rejected when their attempt to contact a prospective date gets no reply. Match.com is still reviewing the complaint, but said "we believe this lawsuit is without merit and we will defend it vigorously."

MORE NEWS @ ONLINE PERSONALS WATCH
_________________
Mark Brooks
Editor, Online Personals Watch
mark@onlinepersonalswatch.com

[batmanrr]

Tonight, I added Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio as a friend on facebook, we have five mutual friends! I also added Michael Steele our Republican National Chairman, and a fellow Marylander.

As I was writing this, I got a survey call concerning my Maryland district politics! Delegate Roger Manno is looking to run against Senator Mike Lenett in the DEM primary! I have talked with Lenett and received a lame letter from Manno. They just don’t understand!

Then I went through a friend’s list and added numerous federal, state and local politicians as friends.

It will be interesting to see the results to my Friends request! So far tonight I have been confirmed as friend by a Councilmember, State Delegate, and Senator Nancy King, a sponsor of SB129!  Stay tuned!

[bronxman]

Yeah, lets make more laws to fuel this fire.

http://www.cbs4denver.com/video/?id=57682@kcnc.dayport.com


.