Should Internet dating sites be required to attempt to screen out the profiles of sexual predators? A woman who claims she was raped by a man she met on Match.com thinks so. She’s suing the company and is asking for an injunction to stop match.com from signing up any new members until the company starts screening for bad guys. After her “date,” she found out—via the Internet—that the guy whom she says raped her had a history of sexual battery.
The attorney for the guy in question says, “What actually went on (was) a consensual sexual encounter between two consenting adults.”
The match.com attorney says, “The company clearly states on its website it does not do background checks,” and so is clearly not liable.
Whatever happened, and however regrettable and/or criminal the incident was—no, we don’t think it is reasonable to require online dating services to screen out the bad men (or women, for that matter.) Can we require the same of, say, bars and nightclubs? No, we didn’t think so. The requirement would be no guarantor of safety. There have been some dating sites that claim to offer background checks, and we’re a little skeptical of the offers. Can you imagine the liability to such a company if just one predator slipped through, after they promised customers otherwise?
We’re not blaming the victim. But we’re not blaming the dating service, either.
The attorney for the guy in question says, “What actually went on (was) a consensual sexual encounter between two consenting adults.”
The match.com attorney says, “The company clearly states on its website it does not do background checks,” and so is clearly not liable.
Whatever happened, and however regrettable and/or criminal the incident was—no, we don’t think it is reasonable to require online dating services to screen out the bad men (or women, for that matter.) Can we require the same of, say, bars and nightclubs? No, we didn’t think so. The requirement would be no guarantor of safety. There have been some dating sites that claim to offer background checks, and we’re a little skeptical of the offers. Can you imagine the liability to such a company if just one predator slipped through, after they promised customers otherwise?
We’re not blaming the victim. But we’re not blaming the dating service, either.
You lose points for leading with the word "Alleged". Alleged rape victim casts aspersions on the victim. Since neither the victim or attacker are named in this story the word "alleged" serves no journalistic purpose. The point of the article is that background checks are an unreasonable expectation for DIY dating services. No doubt a number of rapes, reported and not, have occurred from services like these. And worse. Example: the craigslist killer.
Devil's advocate: match.com is unique in that while they claim no background checks, they routinely reject ads from non-heterosexuals or those not seeking "monogamous marriage". They also advertise and solicit specifically for people outside of the internet community who might from their advertisements (and policies) mistake them for a marriage broker. By fishing in the n00b waters, courts and jurors may decide they have a greater responsibility to be certain their customers have education about internet dating, net safety, etc.
And courts do hold bars and other establishments responsible for the safety and action of their patrons. Poor lighting in parking lots that contributes to crime? Ka-ching! It'll cost you in court so shell out for the lights in the first place --some places have a bouncer escort single women to their cars safely. Serving drinks to someone who drives away and smashes into someone? Ka-ching!
Hi G.L. : Though neither party is named in this story, the "alleged" perpetrator's name is one link away; My call was that caution was in order. Also -- yes, of course, bars and other establishments can be held liable for safety and actions, but other than making sure that someone is old enough to drink (and not already clearly drunk?) -- well, that's all it takes to get *in*. (As I remember, anyway. )
Interesting devil's advocate point ... I'd bet against a court calling it that way, but stranger things have happened and I'm occasionally wrong, yep I am ...
G. L. Morrison - they GAIN points for the use of 'alleged' because there's a little thing in this country called the presumption of innocence, and journalistic integrity requires recognition of the fact that this particular case hasn't gone to court yet and the evidence hasn't been heard.