Internet Archive Sues to Stop New Washington State Law
blog.archive.org
blog.archive.org
The real thing: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/eff-files-legal-m...
EFF press release: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/internet-archive-sues-sto...
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...
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.
It's no surprise that the other Seattle newspapers (Seattle Times, The Stranger, another alternative weekly) would be trying to stick it to their competition.
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?
Looking past the title, what exactly does the text of the bill say? Explain it to me. (Hint: you can be guilty of this even if no minors are involved.) Wouldn't our children be better served by a more clearly written bill?
Doesn't RCW 9.68A.101 already make this crime a class A felony? What situations, exactly, are covered by this bill but not existing law?
As a parent, I agree with the GP that when "think of the children" is trotted out, it indicates ulterior motives.
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.
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".