US Judge: Americans Must Have Criminal Checks Before Contacting Foreigners

[razors edge]

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.



This seems pretty fucked up. Daddy can I talk to the girl down the street, pretty please?

[ixion]

1. a 'loyal bushie' judge

no doubt. :eyes:

[kirby]

3. Clinton

Federal Judicial Service:

Judge, U. S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Nominated by William J. Clinton on March 9, 1994, to a seat vacated by Richard C. Freeman; Confirmed by the Senate on May 6, 1994, and received commission on May 9, 1994.

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=505

(Dont let the facts get in your way...)

[ixion]

6. well, exactly WHO he was appointed by is of no consequence

the fact that he is still seated, and just made a ruling that is wholly unconstitutional are two very telling clues, IMO.

And I don't really need your snarky comments about facts. I'm a proud member of the reality-based community, thanks very much. :hi:

[kirby]

7. Hmmm

Well why didnt you express outrage over the ridiculous ruling? Instead you call him a 'loyaly bushy' despite the fact he was appointed by Clinton in 1994. I agree with you that in this case that 'WHO' appointed him was of no consequence, but to be fair, you are the one who brought it up.

Yes, I know my response was snarky. But if I want to see this type of fact-less info, I'll head over to Faux.

And who is to say his ruling is unconstitutional? Apparently Congress passed a law which did this. Maybe he felt his hands were tied because he needs to interpret the current law (as bad as it may be).
Who knows. The only fact I know is who appointed him.

[ixion]

9. the term reflects an ideology, not person...

and by this, I mean this judge clearly has an agenda that is, at least in spirit, related the neocon's disdain for the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. It is MY OPINION that this ruling reflects that ideology, ergo the use of the phrase.

[kirby]

10. Ok...

I must of misunderstood. My apologies.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. This should slow down the Brides Online services.

[KansDem]

4. *Amore* will win out...

No way you can stop amore :loveya:

[depakid]

5. WTF? This isn't April 1st anymore

Sponsored by Brownback and Cantwell.

After some initial shock, seems to me it might be wise to read the case before jumping to a lot of conclusions.

[Matariki]

14. I've got a feeling there's more to this than the article suggests

My guess is that it's a law that has to do with 'mail order brides' and/or sex trade type stuff.

On first reading it sure is outrageous. I don't think Cantwell would write or sponsor *that* crazy of a bill.

[depakid]

16. Interesting. The district judge issued a TRO earlier this month

In favor of the Dating Service (if that's in fact what they are).

http://usaimmigrationattorney.com/images/CourtOrderTRO.pdf

The statute looks overbroad to me, I bet we'll see this challenged in another court outside the Northern District of Georgia.

[ORDagnabbit]

8. Love my Police State! n/t

[Jonathan50]

11. Funny, there is no requirement for "background checks" before..

Engaging in multi million dollar business relationships.

Only for sex.

Kind of shows where our priorities lie, eh?

[razors edge]

12. Took me thirty five minutes

to get a cashier's check for $6,000.00 yesterday, half cash and half from my checking acct. I thought they were going to put on latex gloves.

But my name isn't Limbaugh, and I was having it made out to Enterprise Leasing Corp of Chicago, not Manuel's Midnight Hillbilly Heroin and Child Sex Tours to the Stars Emporium LLC.

[walldude]

15. Love your little toon there man...

says it all :toast:

[LiberalFighter]

13. Do military have criminal background checks before going overseas?

How about American citizens going overseas as tourists?

Is it okay for American citizens to speak to foreigners visiting our country?

[FormerOstrich]

17. Am I allowed to exchange pleasantries...

with the men I play on-line backgammon with?

What about the guy from Canada that I would most certainly like to stop by and play (non-online) backgammon next time he is in the states? Does just wishing he would find his way this direction require a background check? Uhmmm...what about the web cam?

Seems to me that either I have completely lost touch with reality or there are a lot of people in high places which just don't seem to grasp how us heathens live.

[Bluebear]

18. 'people in high places which just don't seem to grasp how us heathens live.'

Indeed.