Proposed Maryland bill would criminalize love letters

[batmanrr]

Yes, bronxman,
This is a case of buyer beware!
Our government gives away our rights every day, and gives them to the world!
Then they do nothing to protect us from abuse!

[batmanrr]

Looking for friendship with Jeannie on facebook today:

I received this message;
“Good morning. Unfortunately Facebook only allows individuals to have 5,000 Friends and this page is at that limit. Please become a Fan of Governor O'Malley to stay informed and involved.
Here’s the link: http://www.facebook.com/MartinOMalley”

I missed out on the Governor, but the Lt Governor is now a friend along with my Congresswoman, more state Senators, Delegates, Mayors, Councilmembers, and other connected friends etc.

My friends list has grown by 50 since yesterday!

Still waiting on a response from Jeannie and a few other people, at least she has not clicked on the ignore button! BTW, I started with 3 mutual friends, and now we have 20!

[bronxman]

IMBRA on trial. Senate re-hearing 3/24 at 1pm.

[Delphi_Programmer]

Jeannie Haddaway must have closed the comments following her Marriage Broker story, because there is no place to add mine.  I was late to the party.

They sure like comments and discussion when people agree with them, but when they disagree they close down the debate.  Typical of a liberal (oh wait, she's a Republican?).

[mparrotte]

The House is having a hearing on the Senate version and the Senate is having a hearing on the House version.


SB 129 will be heard by the House Economic Matters Committee on March 24.  See Internet:  http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/sb0129.htm
If you scroll to the bottom, you will see the recent activity on this bill.

HB 65 will be heard by the Senate Finance Committee on a yet to be announced date. Unofficially it will be March 29 or later.
See Internet: http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/HB0065.htm


House Economic Matters Committee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Delegate Dereck Davis - Chair House Economic Matters Committee dereck.davis@house.state.md.us ( Prince Georges County District 25)

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa12208.html

Delegate David Rudolph - Vice Chairman House Economic Committee david.rudolph@house.state.md.us ( District Cecil & Harford Counties District 34 )

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/msa12302.html




Senate Finance Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Thomas Middleton  - Chair Senate Finance Committee  thomas.mclain.middleton@senate.state.md.us   (Charles County District 28)

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa11612.html


Senator  John Astle District  - Vice Chairman Senate Finance Committee   john.astle@senate.state.md.us      (Anne Arundel County District 30)

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/05sen/html/msa12160.html

[Taylor]

It will be useless to write to the governor.  The fix is in.  If both the House and Senate passed this bill unanimously, then the gov is going to sign it.

The companies paying a lobbyist should save their money.  I have opined on this website for five years now that the only way these laws will be thrown out is through the courts.  Think about this: If every elected politician holding statewide office in an American state votes to shackle men by a law such as this one, there is absolutely no hope that hiring a lobbyist will do anything.  This is a complete waste of money.

A lawsuit filed in a federal court in Maryland against both the State of Maryland and the United States brought by a citizen of Maryland who wishes to send an email to a foreigner without restraint would be very hard, perhaps impossible, for a court to throw out without granting proper relief to the plaintiff.

I don’t think that relying only on a lawsuit is necessarily a good idea.  A lobbyist may not succeed, but at least an alternative viewpoint would be heard.  It will take a long time to eliminate a law like IMBRA.  Relying on only one tactic doesn’t seem like a good idea.

I think that these laws are unenforceable.  I don’t think this law will be cost neutral to the government.  If taxpayer money has to be spent to enforce IMBRA or IMBRA like laws, they will not be enforced.  The government doesn’t have the money to enforce stupid feminist laws, which are designed to force American men to marry domestically.

[tristan]

A lot has changed since I wrote those words.  The House and Senate in Maryland have now scheduled new hearings on their respective bills, specifically due to the flood of calls and letters reaching them and complaining about the bills.  This is unprecedented.

SB 129 will be heard by the House Economic Matters Committee on March 24.  See Internet:  http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/sb0129.htm

If you scroll to the bottom, you will see the recent activity on this bill.

HB 65 will be heard by the Senate Finance Committee on a yet to be announced date. Unofficially it will be March 29 or later.

See Internet: http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/billfile/HB0065.htm

Also, it was reported elsewhere that Match.com, Yahoo Personals and Eharmony are now engaged, although I have not received any independent verification of this.   The big boys seem to be taking some comfort from the fact that the definition of IMB has an exemption for a company that does not discriminate based on gender or national origin, but some of them have occasional promotions to entice one gender or the other (usually women) to join, offer gold service this month for one gender at the same price, or offer free service for foreigners.  Doing any of these things would make them a regulated IMB.

It may be true that the government may never enforce IMBRA or a Maryland IMBRA, should it be enacted, but there is another pernicious effect to these laws: expanding civil liability.  Here's how it works.  Suppose after the MD law is passed Match.com offers women in China a free membership for one month.  Now they are an IMB.  A year later a woman in Peru is killed by her Maryland boyfiend after meeting through Match.com.  A clever personal injury lawyer will investigate and find out that Match.com meets the definition of an IMB, and sue them for negligence.  The lawyer will have a powerful argument to win the case, because Match.com is operating in violation of the law.

My sources tell me that the big boys think this is remote statistically, and it may be.  However, once it happens and becomes news, Maryland or some other state will decide to tighten the regs and pass further laws.  Also, if this law only or mostly regulates the mom and pops, the next crop of MD lawmakers, or a crop five or ten years from now, will look at the law and wonder why American women are not included, and they will change the law to make sure it does.  Oh, but you say Tahirih and Polaris are the instigators and they will not push for domestic dating laws.  You are right about them, but other feminist groups won't get the message and aren't sharing taxpayer money that Tahirih and Polaris get.  Upstart feminst groups are as sure as the next crop of women's studies grads in universities all across America.  These grads all need jobs, and new jobs are created where there are new male demons to slay.  Liability law expands ALL THE TIME in the United States.  Ask any law professor.

The camel's nose is under the tent, and the big companies think that if they can just keep the nose where it is right now.  They don't realize that they don't need to push the camel COMPLETELY out of the tent.

Taylor, if this law passes I hope you quote this message of mine in the future when Maryland expands the law to cover all dating activity including domestic activity.

[Delphi_Programmer]

I've been saying this for a long time.  If women's groups can get away with passing laws that regulate and restrict marriage to foreigners through certain matchmaking services, then how long will it be before ALL personal introductions are regulated, regardless of whether they're foreign or domestic?  There will come a time when you need to provide personal and criminal background information even to place or answer a personal ad in your local newspaper.

Back in the 1980s when I starting meeting women through personal ads, there was a story of a Georgia ax murderer who met women through personal ads, lured them to his car, drove them to the woods and murdered them.  I worried EVEN THEN that someone was going to come along and pass nanny laws regulating and restricting the personal ads, or even try to ban them altogether.

It is even more dangerous to meet someone locally through a personals column because there are no disclosure requirements AT ALL to have an in-person meeting with a complete stranger.  Nor is there any trail of evidence. 

To even meet a foreigner you have to have a valid passport that is stamped with your date of entry and exit from the other country.  To be with her in your own territory long enough to get alone with her, you have to go through the immigration process, which requires that all kinds of personal information be disclosed.  But to meet a girl in your hometown; you can lie about your identity, age, employment and even your marriage without her knowing it, and be together with her on your own turf where you're in your element and maybe even have accomplices to help you.  This is impossible with a foreigner.

Meeting people through personal introductions is a dangerous thing, and always has been.  There are a lot of deranged nuts out there, and you make yourself vulnerable whenever you meet strangers period.  However, that doesn't mean we have to punish every law-abiding lonely heart who just wants an alternative way to meet people.

[bronxman]

Background checks already seem to be a touchy issue with the larger dating services. True.com has been trying for years to hurt Match.com and others by lobbying for laws that require those sites to post a warning label indicating that they do not perform background checks. How would Herb Vest of True.com feel about the proposed MD laws? If the NJ law referenced in the article below applies to all online dating services then why would it not apply to services that charges fees based on gender and nationality? Billing methods do not logically correlate to safety.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/17/MNDUV0CH2.DTL

Last month, New Jersey became the first state to enact a law requiring the sites to disclose whether they perform background checks.

More broadly, some worry that New Jersey's action will push other states to regulate the online dating industry, creating a hodgepodge of laws that will drive up operating costs and force some companies out of business. Some in the industry say they would prefer federal legislation addressing background checks, rather than a patchwork of state laws.

Huge sums are at stake. Projections by Jupiter Research, an Internet consultancy, suggest the online dating market now totals $700 million or more, and Online Dating Magazine estimates that more than 20 million people visit online dating services each month.

From the True.com website:

http://www.true.com/magazine/saferdating_prosecute.htm

Before a member is allowed to communicate with other TRUE members, we screen for U.S. felony and sexual offense convictions — using one of the largest criminal records databases on the Internet. Anyone with a felony or sexual offense conviction recorded in these databases is prevented from communicating with TRUE members. Review the current list of covered jurisdictions. We require that members provide their legal first and last name, as well as their date of birth (they must also certifiy that the information they provide is correct).

Married individuals who attempt to join TRUE.com are in direct violation of their agreement with TRUE.com. We will shut down the account of any member who's discovered to be married – including those who are separated or have divorces pending. We report married people to the Internet Crime Complaint Center — the IC3 — which is a partnership between the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center. We turn married people in for wire fraud under Title 18, Section 1343 of the U.S. Code.

Do the issues raised in this article sound familiar?

http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/01/new-jersey-background-checks-legislation/

Here is the NJ law:

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A4500/4304_I1.PDF

and here is the latest from Dave Evans regarding the MD law and True.com. The prostitute reference is unsupportable. C'mon Dave...

http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2010/03/fingerprints-may-be-required-to-import-foreign-brides/

.

.

[Delphi_Programmer]

If you are married and representing yourself as single, or if you are a convicted felon or sex offender, be aware that you could be guilty of fraud and subject to civil and criminal penalties under U.S. federal and state law. For example, Title 18, Section 1343 of the U.S. Code authorizes fines of up to $250,000 and jail sentences of up to five years for each offense. TRUE reserves the right to report violators to appropriate law enforcement authorities and seek prosecution or civil redress to the fullest extent of the law. If you are married, a convicted criminal or sex offender, please close your browser.

This is nanny-ism to the ultimate extent.  Our nation was not founded on this kind of police-state bully harassment.

I am absolutely against married people posing as singles and cheating on their spouses.  However, I don't think they should go to jail for it.  Furthermore, it is not a crime to be an ex-criminal.  People who have done the time and paid their debt to society should be allowed to start over.  To shut people out because of a mistake they made in their past is inexcusable.

If TRUE wants to screen out married people and ex-criminals, it's their business.  They are a private company and can allow whomever they want to join their club for whatever reason.  But to report people and prosecute them for being married or ex-criminals is far overreaching.  It is a blatant violation of free speech, free assembly and privacy rights to prosecute someone simply for communicating with someone on a web site.  To lobby for laws that require every dating site to exercise this kind of nanny control over their members, at the threat of criminal prosecution, is so anethmatic to the American way of life and our Constitution as to make this country unrecognizable anymore.

Does anybody care about the Declaration and the Constitution anymore?  Does anybody think people should be entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" anymore?

I wonder when it will be illegal for married people to even visit dating sites, or is it already?  What if you're only there doing research or collecting statistics, and have no intent to solicit anyone?  Will the "IC3" collaborate with Yahoo and Google and collect Internet search and browsing histories from random people so they can issue arrest warrants to those who are "naughty" online, even if only by appearance?

"Sorry, sir.  You're a married man.  You're not allowed to look at the pictures on Match.com.  You have the right to remain silent...." [and takes him away in handcuffs].