Woman is suing Match.com after meeting a man and being raped.

Console

Source: DailyMail (but its all over the net anyways)

'....A woman who claims she was raped by a man she met on Match.com, who she later found out had convictions for sexual battery, is suing the dating website.
The woman, an entertainment executive from California, is demanding that the website screens all its members for sexual predators.
Her lawyer Mark L. Webb is asking for a temporary injunction barring the site from signing up more members until his client’s demands are met.
He said: 'They are a very powerful and successful online dating service, and they have the means to do this.'
He described his client, known in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, as an Ivy League graduate who works in film and television.

She met her her alleged assailant, Alan Paul Wurtzel, last year at a cafe in West Hollywood.

She said he seemed charming and so agreed to see him again. After the second date, however, he allegedly followed her home and forced himself on her.
Mr Wurtzel's attorney has described the incident as 'a consenting sexual encounter.....'

Read more: DailyMail Link

Discuss.

MagicMarker

She got a point, literally and figuratively.

Sykk

Daily Maaaaiiiiirrrrrggggghhhh!!!!!! IT BURNS...

TanG411

Close the internet.

chin_grin

Daily Mail readers.

Daily Mail readers everywhere.

gaz wac

Whats your views on it ?

Console

Console wrote: »

Discuss.

Why don't you discuss and we'll go from there?

parker kent

What about men who meet women in pubs and end up raping them? Should pubs be closed? Or men who meet women in the cinema? Or in parks?

I completely understand she has been through a horrible ordeal, but this is misplaced anger. Blame the scum who raped her, not the dating site.

FatherLen

i think dating websites are ghey!

MagicMarker

FatherLen wrote: »

i think people who use dating websites are ghey!

Regarding gay dating sites, I concur.

FatherLen

MagicMarker wrote: »

Regarding gay dating sites, I concur.

sorry got in some ninja editing there, thought it was a tadd bit harsh so decided to insult the websites as apposed to the users.

Console

you know my opinion is just one mans opinion :P

but ok. Its sad what happened to her. You cant say anything else about rape. its sick.
However, people are saying that match.com could check peoples payment information (your real name would then be available to the site if paying by credit card) and thus could be checked on the sex offenders list. But i'm not sure if thats legal.

And how effective would a screening process be?
what if a rapist hasnt ever been convicted. So while its a nice thing to introduce I dont think it ever could be succesfully.

ejmaztec

She obviously didn't tick the "I don't want to be raped" box on the online application.

kfallon

Did she not notice the 'rape' bit in the 'Interests & Hobbies' section of his application???

If he is found guilty they should chop his dick off tbh!

WindSock

How does a site screen its members?


'Have you ever been convicted of a sexual assault. Tick box as appropriate'


'You have ticked yes which means you are a sexual predator, you may not get membership access to this site'






Back to previous question

Dudess

Besides the stupidity of wanting to sue the dating site, the man who allegedly raped her (important word: "allegedly") doesn't get anonymity but she does? Wtf?

Knasher

I've heard about this (on another website, I swear) and considering she isn't suing them for damages but just looking for them to implement some sort of check, I think its a perfectly reasonable request. Especially considering the requested check is just against the registered sex offender list as opposed to some expensive background check.

The response from Match.com was a bit stupid though, something along the lines of that they were afraid any sex offender check would lead people to be overconfident and they will neglect their personal safety when using the service. Absolute BS.

The_Minister

WindSock wrote: »

How does a site screen its members?


'Have you ever been convicted of a sexual assault. Tick box as appropriate'


'You have ticked yes which means you are a sexual predator, you may not get membership access to this site'






Back to previous question

You have to remember that most American states have publically available sex offenders registers, which can be searched online.

They have this data available, and they have the financial information to match it to.


I think she is wrong, but what she wants is possible (if onerous).

_feedback_

Console wrote: »

The woman, an entertainment executive from California

Is that a posh name for a stripper?

WindSock

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember that most American states have publically available sex offenders registers, which can be searched online.

They have this data available, and they have the financial information to match it to.


I think she is wrong, but what she wants is possible (if onerous).

So could they implement it by requiring a Social Security number or something to sign up with?

I really can't see how they could be liable anyway if it is possible to do that. What if the person hadn't even been convicted. Horrible thing to happen to her but it was her choice to go and meet someone from the site, the onus is on her to take that risk, not that it is her fault she was raped of course, but she should be aware that meeting any one in any setting has its risks.

ejmaztec

elviscostello wrote: »

Is that a posh name for a stripper?

She could be a pole polisher.

KnifeWRENCH

I can understand her anger and frustration but Match.com didn't rape her. There's always an element of risk when you meet someone off the internet; they're not always who or what they claim to be. It would be impossible to screen everyone and claim with 100% certainty that no-one dodgy uses the site.

Console wrote: »

He described his client, known in the lawsuit as Jane Doe, as an Ivy League graduate who works in film and television.

On the bright side, this incident could make a decent episode of Law & Order SVU if she pitches it to them....

Wolfe Tone

Important to note she is claiming that she was raped.

Morlar

Knasher wrote: »

I've heard about this (on another website, I swear) and considering she isn't suing them for damages but just looking for them to implement some sort of check, I think its a perfectly reasonable request. Especially considering the requested check is just against the registered sex offender list as opposed to some expensive background check.

The response from Match.com was a bit stupid though, something along the lines of that they were afraid any sex offender check would lead people to be overconfident and they will neglect their personal safety when using the service. Absolute BS.

I don't understand why they would not want to do this anyway - apart from it may cost them very slightly in admin, or put off some of their paying customers.

IvySlayer

Dudess wrote: »

Besides the stupidity of wanting to sue the dating site, the man who allegedly raped her (important word: "allegedly") doesn't get anonymity but she does? Wtf?

This.

pablomakaveli

Isnt she responsible for her own safety same as everyone else who uses the sites are? Thats why some people might bring a friend along or meet up in a public place.

Bill-e

She went on a second date with him... I doubt she's the sharpest tool in the shed.

citizen_p

WindSock wrote: »

How does a site screen its members?
'Have you ever been convicted of a sexual assault. Tick box as appropriate'
'You have ticked yes which means you are a sexual predator, you may not get membership access to this site'

reminds me of the form you have to fill in flying to america....
have you ever commited or been involved in genocide...
are you a member of a terrorist orginisation.... Does the G.A.A. count :pac:

Micky Dolenz

Bill-e wrote: »

She went on a second date with him... I doubt she's the sharpest tool in the shed.

Why?

Standman

Console wrote: »

..Discuss.

Stop telling me what to do!

Buceph

Mousey- wrote: »

are you a member of a terrorist orginisation.... Does the G.A.A. count :pac:

That's to catch out Gerry Adams if he's had a few drinks.

(I do know Adams was specifically examined when he applied for a visa.)

Dravokivich

wait... why isn't she sueing him?

citizen_p

Dravokivich wrote: »

wait... why isn't she sueing him?

id imagine she brought him to court....and not to get money out of him, to put him back in jail.

orourkeda

Has your man been convicted of raping her?

If not how can she sue for a crime that hasnt been prosecuted?

Dravokivich

Mousey- wrote: »

id imagine she brought him to court....and not to get money out of him, to put him back in jail.

I thought that was only in Ireland?

Wolflikeme

Even if they do implement a check, how would it work?

What's to stop someone from signing up under an false name and email address?

I'd imagine such a check would take from the dynamic of the sight in a way and how easy it is to sign up to these things.

It's a paid site though so I guess they could use credit card details...

gargleblaster

Wolflikeme wrote: »

It's a paid site though so I guess they could use credit card details...

Exactly.

She is not suing for money. She is suing a site that advertises that it screens their members to force them to actually do so.

smokedeels

And I'm suing a pub in Dublin because the girl I met there turned bat-sh!t-crazy and killed my cat....

Console wrote: »

Discuss.

done, now you have a go....

Buceph

Wolflikeme wrote: »

Even if they do implement a check, how would it work?

What's to stop someone from signing up under an false name and email address?

I'd imagine such a check would take from the dynamic of the sight in a way and how easy it is to sign up to these things.

It's a paid site though so I guess they could use credit card details...

Yeah, asking for a Social Security Number is like asking for your PPS number. There's no way I'd be willing to give it out to anything on the internet.

jonsnow

Bill-e wrote: »

She went on a second date with him... I doubt she's the sharpest tool in the shed.

Ivy league graduates rarely are

Coriolanus

Dudess wrote: »

Besides the stupidity of wanting to sue the dating site, the man who allegedly raped her (important word: "allegedly") doesn't get anonymity but she does? Wtf?

It's the same here afaik. It's a pretty common law, that the defendant can be named but that the accusser can't. It's on the assumption that if the accuser was to be named every time, it'd put women off reporting rape.

Why they can't just have anonymity for both, perhaps with the naming of the defendant if found guilty, has never been explained to my satisfaction.

Morlar

Nevore wrote: »

It's the same here afaik. It's a pretty common law, that the defendant can be named but that the accusser can't. It's on the assumption that if the accuser was to be named every time, it'd put women off reporting rape.

Why they can't just have anonymity for both, perhaps with the naming of the defendant if found guilty, has never been explained to my satisfaction.

I'd support anonymity for both unless the accused has previous convictions for sex related crimes (which in this case he does).

Dudess

Identifying the accused could reveal who the alleged victim is, plus if the accused is actually innocent, that's their life ruined anyway. Anonymity for both seems the fairest practice.

Morlar

Dudess wrote: »

Identifying the accused could reveal who the alleged victim is, plus if the accused is actually innocent, that's their life ruined anyway. Anonymity for both seems the fairest practice.

That's true but if the accused has previous sex crime related convictions then I wouldn't get bent out of shape if they are not anonymous. So long as it does not id the (alleged) victim, or, interfere with the criminal trial.

Gyalist

The California Sex Offenders Register is online for anyone to see. Since this was the second date, she could have done her own due diligence between the two dates if she had any doubts about the man.

Hookah

Gyalist wrote: »

The California Sex Offenders Register is online for anyone to see. Since this was the second date, she could have done her own due diligence between the two dates if she had any doubts about the man.

No results for Alan Wurtzel.

Mike 1972

How the fup would this proposed measure affect free dating sites or sites which operate in more than one US state or even Internationally (as most do) ?

Knasher wrote: »

The response from Match.com was a bit stupid though, something along the lines of that they were afraid any sex offender check would lead people to be overconfident and they will neglect their personal safety when using the service. Absolute BS.

It was actually a perfectly reasonable point and as others have pointed out the sex offenders register was available for the (alleged) victim to check out too but some people want everything handed to them in a spoon :rolleyes:

pablomakaveli

orourkeda wrote: »

Has your man been convicted of raping her?

If not how can she sue for a crime that hasnt been prosecuted?

Nicole Browns family succesfully sued OJ simpson after he was found not guilty so it must be possible.

Coriolanus

Dudess wrote: »

Identifying the accused could reveal who the alleged victim is, plus if the accused is actually innocent, that's their life ruined anyway. Anonymity for both seems the fairest practice.

That's why you sometimes hear on the news, "The accused, who cannot be named so as to protect the identity of the victim" etc. For example, Gerry Adams niece gave up her right to anonymity in order to get her abuser named. The papers wouldn't have been able to discuss the case, since it involved incent, without revealing her, or at exposing her to scrutiny.
She wanted him named, so gave up her right to anonymity.

Morlar wrote: »

I'd support anonymity for both unless the accused has previous convictions for sex related crimes (which in this case he does).

I'm not sure. Perhaps within convictions within a certain time frame. The issue I have with naming the assailant still stands whether or not he has previous convictions. He could still be innocent this time.