
Internet Archive Sues to Stop New Washington State Law  - cleverjake
http://blog.archive.org/2012/06/16/internet-archive-sues-to-stop-new-washington-state-law/
======
russell
I hate articles that are nothing more than links to the real article.

The real thing: [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/eff-files-
legal-m...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/eff-files-legal-motion-
to-halt-washington-state-online-sex-ad-law/)

EFF press release: [https://www.eff.org/press/releases/internet-archive-sues-
sto...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/internet-archive-sues-stop-new-
washington-state-law)

------
haberman
I live in Seattle, and had read some about this bill. The local paper supports
it, and their latest editorial specifically argues against the idea that
legitimate businesses have anything to fear:
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018389853.html>

That said, I trust the EFF and Internet Archive to have a better understanding
and appreciation for these issues than some lawmakers who admit that they are
specifically targeting backpage.com, one particular site that runs a lot of
local sex ads.

Backpage.com has also sued over the law:
[http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/06/backpage-com-
sue...](http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/06/backpage-com-sues-state-
of-washington-over-age-verification-law/)

~~~
ken
I think you're right to trust the EFF more than the Seattle Times here.

That editorial says "The law was narrowly crafted to target Backpage", and
that the law is only aimed at "classified advertising company
representatives".

In fact, only one of those four words appears in the bill at all --
"advertising" -- and only then to define it so broadly that it can apply to
virtually any public speech or writing.

------
droithomme
Yet another law "to protect children". As soon as I see that justification, I
know there is a 99% chance that the law will actually be advancing government
power, control and/or surveillance over the general populace. Why is this?
Because lawmakers know that no one likes Big Brother laws, but most everyone's
common sense goes out the window as soon as the "but think of the children"
argument is brought out as a cover for bad law.

~~~
stephengillie
_...most everyone's common sense goes out the window as soon as the "but think
of the children" argument is brought out as a cover for bad law._

Does a good persuasive counter-position exist to the "think of the children"
argument? Is there a way of telling a parent "This person is using your
concern for your child against you, making you afraid so you won't think
logically about what's being done" -- without sounding like a heartless jerk?

~~~
ToastOpt
I suspect it depends on the rationality of the parent you're speaking to. As a
parent, that wording sounds fine to me.

~~~
jmj42
I, too, am a parent (of two teen-age daughters). I agree with the parent.
"Think of the children" is almost always an appeal to an emotional response to
gain support for laws that are generally an attack on adult behavior. These
laws are usually worded to be vague and carry an intention (though often not
overtly stated) to apply to _all_ "taboo" behavior.

As mentioned elsewhere, we already have laws and punishment for sexual
exploitation of children (and adults, for that matter). There's not need for
special laws because the state isn't fond of a specific entity.

------
ken
The wording of SB6251 seems rather confusing to me -- I wonder if the intent
was to make it intentionally vague.

As it was written, if the only qualification is that "an individual who is
less than eighteen" "must be depicted", then I would think that the Seattle
Public Library would clearly be guilty of dozens of these felonies, for all of
the movies with underage nudity that you can see on their own webpage that
they make available to borrow, like the Academy Award-winning "American
Beauty".

------
phil
Archive.org's donation page is here: <http://archive.org/donate/index.php>

------
thinkcomp
Full docket here: <http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1474512>

------
cdooh
Why do governments everywhere feel the need to legislate things they know
little about and even less how to deal with?

~~~
seagreen
Are you propagandizing against government (not that there's anything wrong
with that) or asking a factual question?

