Constitutionally speaking, where can the line be drawn?
There are already strict restrictions placed on where sex offenders can live in the real-world — how far can we go in limiting their existence in the virtual realm?
First, to the legal concerns: The ACLU filed a lawsuit in response to an earlier version of the Louisiana law, which seemed to apply not only to social networking sites but to , claiming that it was “overbroad” and would infringe upon “free speech rights under the First Amendment.” It was already signed into law but was struck down in February on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.
OK, so banning sex offenders from accessing most sites on the Web is unconstitutional, but what about banning them in more limited ways?
A woman identified as Jane Doe who sued after she was sexually abused by a man who had allegedly sexually assaulted at least one other woman from the site previously has settled her lawsuit against the online dating service.
Although the amount is confidential, the agreement came Monday in Doe’s negligence case, which alleged Match failed to remove co-defendant Ryan Logan’s profile after a separate user filed a rape complaint against him. who represents Doe, said Doe plans to move forward with pursuing a judgment against Logan.
(A similar bill was signed into law in Illinois in 2009 and put on hold in California in 2011.) Late last month, Match.com, e Harmony and the Spark Networks signed a “joint statement of business principles” to attempt to screen out registered sex offenders.
I could tell he was annoyed that I wasn’t falling all over him after hearing his bragging.
"Visibly frustrated, he decided to inform me that his ex-girlfriend knew me, and that when she found out we were going on a date, she’d called me a whore.
In a group, there’s no pressure, everyone relaxes, and you can be yourself.
Each month is packed with 30-50 great event choices: foodie, night out, active adventure, casual hangout…