New Jersey residents may email veto requests to Fruqan Mouzon, the Counsel to the Governor. His email address is Fruqan.firstname.lastname@example.org .
It is sufficient and powerful for a New Jersey voter to send an email just saying: "Please veto SB 1977 because __________."
The following are two examples of what people might send if they want to be more elaborate.
FROM AN ONLINE DATER:
"I urge you to veto SB 1977 as it suggests that online dating services are somehow more dangerous than traditional dating methods.
I would like to point out the many perks of online dating that the offline dating scene simply cannot offer. The benefits of online dating are absolutely endless. Individuals or groups of people who want to meet other people for social purposes, romantic attachments, or just to make new friends can do so through the means of online dating services.
First, conversing online is much safer than meeting someone in a bar as:
* I have the opportunity to get to know someone from the comfort of my own home without having to reveal what I look like or even my name.
* I choose when it is appropriate for the person to know my name or what I look like.
* I can easily end a conversation with someone by simply blocking them from my email.
* I can evaluate someone based on similar interests and character traits that I feel are important to me before I decide I want to meet the person face to face.
* Once I choose to meet someone face to face, I conduct my own background check. I would never rely on a dating site to decide who I do or do not want to date. I can easily hire an inexpensive private service that will search a person's background based on my own criteria. For example, I would care less about a potential mate that has been convicted of a felony DWI than I would convicted of a sexual offense.
SB 1977 sends the wrong message to daters. It suggests that background checks are accurate and comprehensive.
Even as a novice dater, I know that someone could easily provide me with a fake name so they would not show up on a background check. That is why I also ask other daters, family and friends about the person before arranging a face to face meeting, which I usually do in a public place."
AND FROM A BUSINESS
"Please veto New Jersey SB 1977, the online dating background check bill as the bill is unnecessary and could actually make the Internet less safe for consumers pursuing relationships online.
The bill is:
* Misleading. Will mislead and confuse users of online services as the bill suggests to consumers that background checks are accurate and comprehensive. Background checks are flawed as identifying data can be easily falsified by someone who wants to subvert the system. Consumers should not be led to believe that background checks make them safer.
* Ineffective. State-level regulation of an inherently interstate service does not work. Subscribers routinely communicate and develop relationships -cross state lines, making it nearly impossible for dating services to comply with a patchwork of different state laws. In fact, the Internet as a dating medium actually makes for a safer online experience, since members can interact via computer to determine when and whether it is safe to meet in person.
* Costly. The increased cost of companies having to background checks on members could be passed on to consumers who would end up being forced to purchase background check services they may not want or need. The bill would also likely increase costs to New Jersey taxpayers by triggering a successful constitutional challenge on Dormant Commerce Clause and First Amendment grounds.
* Unnecessary. Leading online dating services already provide safety warnings in terms of service and on company websites. SB 1977 would require onerous notice requirements that would be ineffective and highly burdensome to any business. Requiring companies to conduct criminal background searches on all users or post scary warning notices prominently on the homepage of websites would drive users away.
* Discriminatory. The legislation discriminates against Internet business by applying only to dating services that operate primarily online. There is no justification for this discrimination, especially because there are many more offline dating services than their online counterparts.
The marketplace is the best place to address these issues. Consumers are in the best position to determine which services provide them with the most security and comfort. An informed consumer, armed with technology, common sense and information is the best protection they can have when doing anything online.
Similar bills have been considered in several states and failed over the past four years. Those states are: California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Alaska and Texas.
Again, SB 1977 is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional, please veto the bill."