More LEGAL HASSLES for dating sites

**ServerGenius** · 11-26-2007, 01:42 AM

Only in America land of the FREE!

**WiredGuy** · 11-26-2007, 02:04 AM

I can't see a single dating site actually doing this.
WG

**WiredGuy** · 11-26-2007, 02:05 AM

I can't see a single dating site actually doing this.
WG

**xmas13** · 11-26-2007, 02:28 AM

Jesus Christ............

**aico** · 11-26-2007, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by ServerGenius

Only in America land of the FREE!

Ain't nothing free about this land.

And while I am at it, a Democracy is 51% of the people telling the other 49% what they can and cannot do.

**After Shock Media** · 11-26-2007, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by aico

Ain't nothing free about this land.

And while I am at it, a Democracy is 51% of the people telling the other 49% what they can and cannot do.

Actually that would be much less. You need to take into account the percent that actually vote or show up for juries, and then take the majority from there.

**aico** · 11-26-2007, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

Actually that would be much less. You need to take into account the percent that actually vote or show up for juries, and then take the majority from there.

I was trying to look at the brighter side of it

**Wizzo** · 11-26-2007, 04:10 AM

I wasn't aware that online dating was unsafe? From what I understand more women are raped and/or killed by men they meet in bars over online... Maybe bars should post a sign if they do background checks...

**dissipate** · 11-26-2007, 04:16 AM

chances of any of this being follow are slim and none imho

**12clicks** · 11-26-2007, 05:10 AM

funniest thing about this law is that it was passed by a democratic state senate, is being pushed by a democratic controlled assembly, and will be signed by a democratic governor. You know, the party that we're better off with.

**pr0** · 11-26-2007, 05:13 AM

New Jersey sucks a huge cock

All the cities are urine smelling ghetto's....75% of the people suck, 25% of the people are tolerable

If it wasn't for your eggplant production, I'd say burn it down & start over again.

**ajrocks** · 11-26-2007, 05:17 AM

People living in NJ need to be protected from Dating sites? Isn't there a lot of crime and mob activity there? I love these government folks, you would think they had better things to worry about.

**Damian_Maxcash** · 11-26-2007, 05:24 AM

Do many dating sites actually do criminal checks?

**ShellyCrash** · 11-26-2007, 05:30 AM

There was similar legislation being pushed in another state but do date never made it through, I want to say Illinois but I don't remember. It's all being backed by True.com under the guise that it will protect women from sexual predators.

A criminal background check only offers a false sense of security. They want to make people think that running these background checks is going to protect them from the next Ted Bundy, but they ignore the fact that Ted Bundy and people like him usually don't have a prior criminal records.

**Barefootsies** · 11-26-2007, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by ServerGenius

Only in America land of the FREE!

**$5 submissions** · 11-26-2007, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by aico

Ain't nothing free about this land.

And while I am at it, a Democracy is 51% of the people telling the other 49% what they can and cannot do.

That's why the Bill of Rights was passed.... to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, there's many people who think that GOVERNMENT knows best.

Or worse... that government can actually legislate morality.

**DateDoc** · 11-26-2007, 10:27 AM

Are they going to pass a bill for all the singles bars in NJ to do background checks of all their customers at the door too???

**Matt 26z** · 11-26-2007, 10:27 AM

This is just another case of politicians pushing for laws that serve only to build up their voting records. It doesn't matter if the law is actually needed or not. They need something, anything, that will hit the news and make it appear to their voters as if they are being productive.

**Damian_Maxcash** · 11-26-2007, 10:31 AM

Can I clear something up?

Are they saying you have to have crimianl checks on members or if you do you have to tell them about it?

If its the latter then it sounds good to me......

**$5 submissions** · 11-26-2007, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Damian_Maxcash

Can I clear something up?

Are they saying you have to have crimianl checks on members or if you do you have to tell them about it?

If its the latter then it sounds good to me......

The bill requires that dating sites should notify its NJ members WHETHER they do background checks or not.

**ravo** · 11-26-2007, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Damian_Maxcash

Can I clear something up?

Are they saying you have to have crimianl checks on members or if you do you have to tell them about it?

If its the latter then it sounds good to me......

I agree. I only quickly read the proposed law, but to me, it looks like all you have to do is disclose whether or not you do background checks (*not* that you are required to do them).

So a statement similar to "We do not do background criminal checks" would suffice. Yes?

**Damian_Maxcash** · 11-26-2007, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

The bill requires that dating sites should notify its NJ members WHETHER they do background checks or not.

OK - that is a pain - I could understand you should say it anyway if you do it.

I suppose if you do or dont you will have to add it alongside all the other disclaimers at the bottom of the page.

**DaddyHalbucks** · 11-26-2007, 10:49 AM

Why would there be any *expectation* of a criminal background check?

It's like labeling coffee cups "Contents HOT" --DUH!!

**Matt 26z** · 11-26-2007, 10:54 AM

Would this also be required for the personals section of the newspapers?

**L-Pink** · 11-26-2007, 10:57 AM

Will they run background checks on fake profiles?

**JFK** · 11-26-2007, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by ServerGenius

Only in America land of the FREE!

**baddog** · 11-26-2007, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Damian_Maxcash

Do any dating sites actually do criminal checks?

Let's modify that question a little.

**$5 submissions** · 11-26-2007, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by DaddyHalbucks

It's like labeling coffee cups "Contents HOT" --DUH!!

There was a lady who sued McDonald's for making their coffee too hot.... she won $2.9 Million (initially--appeals court lowered it). See: http://www.cooter-ulen.com/tort_liability.htm

**Damian_Maxcash** · 11-26-2007, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by baddog

Let's modify that question a little.

OK - I will add an 'M'

I will admit I didnt realise it was that common....

**ShellyCrash** · 11-26-2007, 11:35 AM

The only one I'm aware of is the one sponosring the legislation

**V_RocKs** · 11-26-2007, 12:30 PM

This the real reason the AFF people sold the site?

**Damian_Maxcash** · 11-26-2007, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by V_RocKs

This the real reason the AFF people sold the site?

I hope that is meant to be 'Ironic'?

**BradM** · 11-26-2007, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by 12clicks

funniest thing about this law is that it was passed by a democratic state senate, is being pushed by a democratic controlled assembly, and will be signed by a democratic governor. You know, the party that we're better off with.

The republicans have never once made stupid legislation.

They have also NEVER said anything stupid, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

**Damian_Maxcash** · 11-26-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by BradM

The republicans have never once made stupid legislation.

They have also NEVER said anything stupid, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

I hadnt seen that before - damn funny

**justFred** · 11-26-2007, 12:47 PM

my first response to this if I owned a dating site would be:

then after that was said and done I'd update my ToS to say that NJ residents are forbidden to participate in the site. I wouldn't actively block/re-route the traffic though, as that would be a loss of revenue

Would that be enough to not get my shit shut down?

**esnem** · 11-26-2007, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by ShellyCrash

There was similar legislation being pushed in another state but do date never made it through, I want to say Illinois but I don't remember. It's all being backed by True.com under the guise that it will protect women from sexual predators.

good pickup...politicians don't just think this shit up. follow the money.

**seeric** · 11-26-2007, 01:16 PM

simple

geoip block all new jersey ips. boooyahhh.

problem solved. lolll

**12clicks** · 11-26-2007, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by BradM

The republicans have never once made stupid legislation.

They have also NEVER said anything stupid, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

this would make sense if I had said they didn't or if I were canadian.

**tony286** · 11-26-2007, 01:22 PM

If they just have say if they do criminal background checks or not. Whats the big deal. In the members area NJ members click here and say that its not done.
I can see the point of it being from NY,it has been found NJ people are a little slow. lol

**seeric** · 11-26-2007, 01:24 PM

oh yah and re route traffic from nj to smokey the bears mc hammer pop script.

lol

jk

thats jus mean

**GatorB** · 11-26-2007, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by After Shock Media

Actually that would be much less. You need to take into account the percent that actually vote or show up for juries, and then take the majority from there.

Yep because actually only 25% of the adult population actually voted for GW Bush in 2004.

**AWC** · 11-26-2007, 01:33 PM

dating sites should be protected from NJ residents would be more appropriate.

**sara production manager** · 11-26-2007, 01:34 PM

ha ha right

**$5 submissions** · 11-26-2007, 05:41 PM

One way to interpret this is, if it ever goes through to becoming a law, that it opens the door to other regulations. Regulating profiles? Regulating communications? etc etc. Where does it stop?

**GatorB** · 11-26-2007, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

One way to interpret this is, if it ever goes through to becoming a law, that it opens the door to other regulations. Regulating profiles? Regulating communications? etc etc. Where does it stop?

Where have you been for 200 years?

Anyways are newspapers that have personal ads required to follow these rules? If not then there's a cause for a court case. Also I'm sure companies like Yahoo will fight this.

**Grapesoda** · 11-26-2007, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by $5 submissions

Dating sites are required to notify all NJ customers if the sites ran criminal background checks on their members.

big deal, pop out the email: no BG checks were done, fuck at your own risk. -bmb

**$5 submissions** · 11-26-2007, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by GatorB

Where have you been for 200 years?

Anyways are newspapers that have personal ads required to follow these rules? If not then there's a cause for a court case. Also I'm sure companies like Yahoo will fight this.

What I meant by "regulating communications" was "regulating communications within the site."

**madleinx** · 11-26-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Matt 26z

This is just another case of politicians pushing for laws that serve only to build up their voting records. It doesn't matter if the law is actually needed or not. They need something, anything, that will hit the news and make it appear to their voters as if they are being productive.

Exactly.

**$5 submissions** · 11-27-2007, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Matt 26z

Would this also be required for the personals section of the newspapers?

Good rhetorical question re the absurdity of the bill. It is overly burdensome, opens the door to a host of other regulations, and is, practically, ineffective.

More LEGAL HASSLES for dating sites

More LEGAL HASSLES for dating sites

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment