Say, does anyone know where I can pick up a fourteen-year-old Honduran prostitute? Mrs. Fnarf's going to be out, so I thought I'd have a party.

Note that the Internet Archive with representation from the EFF (a couple of truly righteous organizations) is suing Washington over this law.

From the EFF press release referenced above:

As written, the vaguely-worded statute – making it a felony to "directly or indirectly" provide access to any material that might constitute an "explicit or implicit" commercial offer for sex – could be read to apply not only to posters but to neutral entities that provide access to online information, including ISPs, Internet cafes, and libraries. This would result in a chilling effect as such entities begin feeling pressured to censor protected online speech in order to safely stay on the right side of the unclear law.

Washington's new statute also squarely conflicts with established federal law – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – that was passed with the dual aims of protecting Internet intermediaries from liability for most of what their users do and establishing a clear, national Internet policy to avoid the development of a confusing patchwork of state laws. If allowed to stand, SB 6251 would undermine this important Congressional policy decision that directly fosters free speech, innovation, and the dissemination of knowledge online. It would also set a dangerous precedent allowing individual states to regulate the Internet as each sees fit, establishing a speech-chilling "race to the bottom" with service providers restricting speech according to the most invasive state law on the books.

@1, I counsel patience. If Backpage does get shut down dozens of new sites will spring up to fill the vacuum - unlike Backpage those won't have admins and cops watching like hawks so you'll be more likely to escape prosecution. Hang in there...

Thanks, Phil M @2. That's interesting stuff. Clearly, VVM is a bunch of greedy douchebags scrabbling to hold onto the last scraps of their dwindling revenue streams.

But it always makes me concerned when the rocket-scientists we have in the WA legislature take out their sharpest crayons to try to fix a problem.

@2, @4: EFF issued a new press release about this today:

July 27, 2012
Judge Grants Internet Archive's Motion and Blocks Enforcement of New Washington Statute

Says Statute Likely Violates First Amendment, Federal Communications Decency Act

Seattle - Today, a federal district court judge granted a motion by the Internet Archive to block enforcement of an overbroad Washington state anti-sex trafficking statute that could make online service providers criminally liable for providing access to third parties' offensive materials.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is representing the Internet Archive in order to invalidate SB 6251, a law aimed at combatting advertisements for underage sex workers but with vague and overbroad language that is squarely in conflict with federal law. EFF last week appeared in federal district court in Seattle to argue that the court should grant a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the criminal statute while the lawsuit is ongoing. The court today agreed with the Internet Archive, finding that the statute likely violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the dormant Commerce Clause, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

"We are grateful that the Court agreed with our concerns about the gravity of the structural problems with this statute," said Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "While everyone involved in this case agrees that sex trafficking is an abhorrent practice, the approach used in this statute to combat the problem is fundamentally and irretrievably flawed. States cannot make those who provide access to online information -- like libraries or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) -- responsible for the illegal behavior of third party users, under threat of criminal penalties. Prosecuting criminals themselves will always be the better approach."

SB 6251 was passed with the hope of criminalizing the dissemination of underage sex trafficking ads and imposing a requirement to confirm the ages of individuals in such ads prior to publication. The law, however, is fraught with problems. As written, the vaguely-worded statute -- making it a felony to "directly or indirectly" provide access to any material that might constitute an "explicit or implicit" commercial offer for sex -- could be read to apply not only to posters but to neutral entities that provide access to online information, including ISPs, Internet cafes, and libraries. This would result in a chilling effect as such entities begin feeling pressured to censor protected online speech in order to safely stay on the right side of an unclear law. The Internet Archive is particularly concerned with any statute that seeks to make intermediaries responsible for content created by third parties -- the Internet Archive itself currently makes available over 150 billion archived web pages from 1996 to the present and has no practical ability to screen its collection for illegal content.

With the statute now enjoined, the plaintiffs (including Backpage.com, which has filed a separate complaint challenging the legality of the law) will now move for a final declaration by the court that the statute is illegal.

For the order granting preliminary injunction barring enforcement of SB 6251:
https://www.eff.org/node/71321

For more on this case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/internetarchiv…

Contacts:

Matt Zimmerman
Senior Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
mattz@eff.org

Related Issues:
Free Speech, CDA 230

That's very concerning. It's really hard to go from a TRO to an injunction. Yeesh.

"That's not to say Judge Martinez agrees that Washington's new law violates the First Amendment."

Yes it does. An injunction is issued only in cases in which the judge feels the plaintiff is likely to win at trial. Its purpose is to avoid further harm to the plaintiff during adjudication. That's why the judge's decision starts with this phrase: "Having shown a likelihood of success on the merits..."