Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date internationally

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brian Randell <Brian.Randell () ncl ac uk>
Date: April 7, 2007 5:28:28 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: [IP] Re: Judge: Americans need background checks to date  
internationally

Dave:

Am I alone on the IP list in wondering whether this whole IMBRA  
business is a hoax?

Certainly my immediate reaction on reading the first post was to  
check whether it was dated 1 April.

And the comments I've received from an American colleague to whom I  
forwarded the post, with my suspicions, were:

> Just to be sure, I checked. It's not in the
> U.S. Code, either under IMBRA or "International
> Marriage Broker." But a lot of people are
> obviously in on this one.

> 90% of proposed bills do not turn into law.
>
> Note that a Google search does not bring up any
> news stories about the law being passed.
>
> What I take as definitive for US law is the Library of Congress  
> "Thomas" site:
> http://www.thomas.gov/
> You can track all bills in House or Senate for
> the current session, and the US Code for laws
> that actually passed in previous sessions.
>
> I don't doubt that some of the IMBRA sites have
> genuinely been taken in by this hoax.
>
> But it hasn't made it to
> www.snopes.com yet.

> I remain convinced it's a well-executed hoax.

Cheers

Brian Randell

PS Or is IMBRA like Mornington Crescent, i.e. a long-running put-on,  
which (almost) everyone plays along with, carefully concealing the  
fact that the whole thing is a giant hoax, so that asking whether  
it's for real merely exposes one's naiveté? (If so let me use my  
nationality and the width of the Atlantic as my excuses! :-)



> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"  
> <froomkin () law miami edu>
> Date: April 4, 2007 5:01:54 PM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
> Cc: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: Re: [IP] Judge: Americans need background checks to date  
> internationally
> Reply-To: froomkin () law tm
>
> This is totally misleading.  It would of course violate the First  
> Amendment to have a law that stops you or me communicating over the  
> internet, even if it's to date foreigners.
>
> What the law actually does is regulate MAIL ORDER BRIDE SERVICES  
> and IMMIGRATION PETITIONS FOR FOREIGN FIANCESS AND SPOUSES.  Not  
> amorous internet users.
>
> Repeat: this isn't about internet messages by regular people.
>
> It's about (1) sales pitches to foreigners by mail order bride  
> companies and about whether they can disclose US client info to  
> foreign clients without the foreign client's "informed consent" --  
> which is defined to include doing a check for sex offendere  
> convictions of the US client and reporting any found to the foreign  
> client.
>
> AND it's about
>
> (2) what you have to do to get papers for your foreign spouse/ 
> fiance ("IMBRA requires a U.S. petitioner applying to sponsor a  
> foreign fiancée or spouse to report certain arrests and/or criminal  
> convictions for violent crimes, including domestic violence, sexual  
> assault, and child abuse.")
>
> So this isn't "a sad day" for the Internet, and you remain free to  
> say "hello" to anyone you like.  But it does mean that it's going  
> to be harder for sex offenders to trick unspecting women into  
> becoming their slaves (because if they come here on a fiance visa,  
> and then divorce in the first 2 years, they get deported -- think  
> of the power that gives the abusing husband....),
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, David Farber wrote:
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
> > Date: April 4, 2007 3:25:35 PM EDT
> > To: Infowarrior List <infowarrior () attrition org>
> > Cc: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> > Subject: Judge: Americans need background checks to date  
> > internationally
> >
> >
> >
> > US Judge Affirms IMBRA: Americans Must Have Criminal Checks Before
> > Contacting Foreigners on Internet
> >
> > http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/4/prweb515227.htm
> >
> > A new federal law that makes it a crime for Americans to  
> > communicate with
> > foreigners on dating websites without criminal background checks  
> > is upheld
> > by a federal judge.
> >
> > Washington, DC (PRWEB) April 2, 2007 -- On March 26, 2007, a new  
> > federal law
> > restricting Americans from contacting foreigners through internet  
> > dating
> > sites was upheld by a federal court after a Constitutional  
> > challenge by an
> > internet dating company. In European Connections v. Alberto Gonzales,
> > 1:06-CV-0426-CC, Judge Clarence Cooper of the US District Court  
> > for the
> > Northern District of Georgia dismissed a lawsuit by European  
> > Connections
> > which claimed that the law violated the right to freedom of speech  
> > contained
> > in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The  
> > plaintiff had
> > failed to challenge the law based on the First Amendment right to  
> > assemble.
> >
> > According to Tristan Laurent, President of the advocacy group  
> > Online Dating
> > Rights, "We will now have to take legal action from the point of  
> > view of the
> > users of online dating sites. The whole idea that it is now a  
> > crime for
> > American men to send emails to women in other countries is so  
> > preposterous
> > it is beyond belief. The judge's ruling that there is no  
> > Constitutional
> > violation in forcing Americans to divulge all sorts of highly  
> > personal
> > information to a complete stranger or scammer abroad before the  
> > American can
> > even say hello or know to whom he is writing is only exceeded in  
> > foolishness
> > by Congress in making the law."
> >
> > The law was originally called the International Matchmaker  
> > Regulation Act,
> > but it did not pass Congress in previous years by that name and it  
> > was later
> > named the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA)  
> > before it
> > passed on December 17th, 2005. The law, which was attached to the
> > reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was  
> > apparently not
> > debated in public and Mr. Laurent says that no dating company or  
> > dating site
> > user was invited to a closed-door Senate hearing in July 2004.
> >
> > IMBRA makes it a felony for an internet dating company, that  
> > primarily
> > focuses on introducing Americans to foreigners, to allow any  
> > American to
> > communicate with any person of foreign nationality without first  
> > subjecting
> > that American to a criminal background check, a sex offender check  
> > and
> > without first having the American certify any previous convictions or
> > arrests, any previous marriages or divorces any children and all  
> > states of
> > residence since 18. Match.com is excluded from the law, and the  
> > judge found
> > that this exception posed no challenge to the Fifth Amendment equal
> > protection clause because American women are supposedly not abused by
> > American men that they meet on the internet, and thus are not in  
> > need of
> > protection.
> >
> > The law was sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS and Sen. Maria  
> > Cantwell,
> > D-WA and was championed by key women's groups. The law was passed  
> > after
> > these groups made claims that foreign women who marry American men  
> > are
> > subjected to higher rates of abuse than are American women.  
> > However, the
> > only study that addresses this issue was done by the INS in 1999  
> > and it
> > found that the rate of abuse in such international marriages is  
> > one-seventh
> > the rate of abuse in domestic marriages. See
> > http://www.online-dating-rights.com/index.php? 
> > ind=downloads&op=entry_view&id
> > en=24
> >
> > Online Dating Rights Director of Public Relations Jim Peterson  
> > said of the
> > judge's ruling: "It is a sad day for freedom in our country when  
> > an American
> > has to have a criminal background check before he can say 'Hello"  
> > to a
> > foreigner through the internet." He also said that "America is the  
> > only
> > country in the world that regulates communication between two  
> > consenting
> > adults seeking to communicate via internet, with the possible  
> > exceptions of
> > China and North Korea. Without new email technology, IMBRA could  
> > not have
> > been even feasible because people generally sent paper letters to  
> > each
> > other's home addresses just a few years ago. Is it right for the US
> > government to make a form of communication illegal when it was the  
> > only form
> > of communication possible just a few years ago?"
> >
> > The law has been attacked in a bipartisan fashion by prominent  
> > feminist
> > Wendy McElroy
> > http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111.html  
> > and by
> > men's rights supporter David Usher
> > http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=2444_0_1_0_M and by
> > immigration attorney Gary Bala
> > http://www.online-dating-rights.com/index.php? 
> > ind=downloads&op=entry_view&id
> > en=21
> >
> > Mr. Laurent says that his organization has undertaken a  
> > fundraising drive to
> > raise $100,000 for a class-action suit against the government on  
> > behalf of
> > all the men who can no longer contact women in Canada, England,  
> > Germany,
> > Russia and the Philippines due to this law. Contributors are asked  
> > to visit
> > the website at www.online-dating-rights.com.
> >
> > Both Mr. Laurent and Mr. Peterson are available for media  
> > interviews but
> > since both have to work for a living and do not receive federal  
> > taxpayer
> > funding, arrangements for telephone interviews should be made by  
> > email if
> > possible. Contact Mr. Laurent at onlinedatingrights @ yahoo.com  
> > and Mr.
> > Peterson at veterans @ veteransabroad.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/7492317-93eb57
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
> --
> http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin () law tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm

--
School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne,
NE1 7RU, UK
EMAIL = Brian.Randell () ncl ac uk   PHONE = +44 191 222 7923
FAX = +44 191 222 8232  URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/~brian.randell/



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com