State online sex trafficking law to be struck down
SEATTLE (AP) - A Washington state law aimed at battling online sex trafficking is likely to be struck down after state Attorney General Rob McKenna declined to continue a legal fight over the measure in federal court.
McKenna's office said Friday that it will not continue its defense of Engrossed Senate Bill 6252, one of several measures written by lawmakers earlier this year to combat online sex trafficking. Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the bill, aimed at online classified site Backpage.com, into law in March.
The law was challenged by Backpage.com and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an internet advocacy group.
In July, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez issued a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. The settlement this week paves the way for the block to become permanent.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued on behalf of online library Internet Archive, arguing that targeting Internet service providers was unconstitutional and violated federal law. Backpage.com sued separately.
The organization said the Washington Legislature passed the law "despite its obvious potential to curtail legitimate speech."
For example, the vague and overbroad statute threatened to impose felony liability not only on those directly engaged in illegal acts but also on those who "indirectly" caused to be "disseminated" any "implicit" offers for commercial sex acts. That could potentially affect services that merely provide access to information, like web hosts, ISPs, or online libraries, impeding their ability to operate," the organization said in a statement.
Attorneys for Backpage.com and the EFF argued the state law came into conflict with the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online service providers from the acts of its subscribers or users.
McKenna said unless Congress makes changes to that federal rule, an appeal to uphold the state law would have been lengthy and costly.
"We disagree with Judge Martinez," McKenna said in a statement. "We do not believe that advertisements for a service illegal in every state - prostitution - are protected by the Constitution. That part of his decision would likely be overturned upon appeal."
Contrary to McKenna's statement, prostitution is legal in Nevada in licensed brothels.
As part of the settlement, Washington state will pay $200,000 to cover legal fees of Backpage.com and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Phoenix-based Village Voice Media Holdings LLC owns Backpage.com. It also owned free arts weekly newspapers across the country, including New York's Village Voice and the Seattle Weekly, but the newspapers were sold to a separate company earlier this year.
McKenna's office said Friday that it will not continue its defense of Engrossed Senate Bill 6252, one of several measures written by lawmakers earlier this year to combat online sex trafficking. Gov. Chris Gregoire signed the bill, aimed at online classified site Backpage.com, into law in March.
The law was challenged by Backpage.com and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an internet advocacy group.
In July, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez issued a temporary injunction blocking the law from taking effect. The settlement this week paves the way for the block to become permanent.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation sued on behalf of online library Internet Archive, arguing that targeting Internet service providers was unconstitutional and violated federal law. Backpage.com sued separately.
The organization said the Washington Legislature passed the law "despite its obvious potential to curtail legitimate speech."
For example, the vague and overbroad statute threatened to impose felony liability not only on those directly engaged in illegal acts but also on those who "indirectly" caused to be "disseminated" any "implicit" offers for commercial sex acts. That could potentially affect services that merely provide access to information, like web hosts, ISPs, or online libraries, impeding their ability to operate," the organization said in a statement.
Attorneys for Backpage.com and the EFF argued the state law came into conflict with the federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online service providers from the acts of its subscribers or users.
McKenna said unless Congress makes changes to that federal rule, an appeal to uphold the state law would have been lengthy and costly.
"We disagree with Judge Martinez," McKenna said in a statement. "We do not believe that advertisements for a service illegal in every state - prostitution - are protected by the Constitution. That part of his decision would likely be overturned upon appeal."
Contrary to McKenna's statement, prostitution is legal in Nevada in licensed brothels.
As part of the settlement, Washington state will pay $200,000 to cover legal fees of Backpage.com and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Phoenix-based Village Voice Media Holdings LLC owns Backpage.com. It also owned free arts weekly newspapers across the country, including New York's Village Voice and the Seattle Weekly, but the newspapers were sold to a separate company earlier this year.
But think of the children!!! This BS law was about suppressing our constitutional rights to free speech. Taking away the swizzle stick of a martini drinker and they will stir it with something else, take away the pipe of a pot smoker and they will fashion one from a coke can. The problem isn't backpage.com the problem is the pimps who target under age girls to ply their trade. Backpage.com was used as the conduit. Taking that away the conduit does nothing to stop them, it only takes away more of our 200 year old rights and places a heavy burden on the publishing company. Now law enforcement just needs to step up the game and do their job.
Yes, lets pretend that theoretical and invented paranoia about the "government" doing it's job to protect people by exerting controls is more important than working to make it more difficult to exploit children online. I want to barf...
 @Citizen#3457899654 I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. Thomas Jefferson
Wish both congress and our state legislature would pass a bill that any bills submitted should have to pass a constitutional test first. Would save the public a lot of headaches. This one is clearly unconstitutional just like the laws against prostitution are clearly unconstitutional. People have the right to do what they want with their bodies. If consenting adults want to pay to have sex there is nothing immoral or unconstitutional about that.
@Blindman They are talking about sex Trafficking/ not consensul sex between a prostitute and client. trafficking includes defenseless children.
The Liberal haters in this state finally went too far. Â
@Patches Pal explain please?
Hm... Who would have thought the legislature passes and the governor signs into law something that is unconstitutional? Obviously, unconstitutional laws don't just come from initiatives, as many think.
Â
 @giveitarest Try explaining that to people.  Just because it is a law does not mean it is right or constitutional.  Many do not understand this and just believe if it is a law it has to be okay.
Really, if you don't like them just send in the government hackers. They could disrupt their online ventures, ad nauseam. If the web site is down there is little to be gained. The internet is lawless so you need to play with the rules you have...which are none.
 @Grumpa Because it's the state. Have you seen any of the sate websites? I'd say they're lacking in IT. That goes for most states for some reason.
 @Grumpa Great idea, if the government doesn't like something the can disrupt it. I know it happens in other countries but this is a slipper slope to allow our government to censor and shut down sites it doesn't like.
 @APenny4MyThoughts Ya this was all tongue in cheek. The legal ramifications of the government doing this would be huge. I was just thinking out loud. :-)
Yay, it's slap your nanny state day!
@Tim Lane Um sex trade of minors and child porn makes you happy?
Legalize prostitution, that way people won't have to frequent these sites and street corners.  The can go to legal, regulated establishments where people are not being trafficked.  A law that stops two consenting adults from doing something they both want to and isn't hurting anyone isn't a good law.
@APenny4MyThoughts So legalized prostitution is the answer? what about the pervert that like girls in their tweens? and can't stand adult women? should we legalize that too?
 @wynooheeman  @APenny4MyThoughts It would separate the two at least a little bit you wouldn't have as big of an issue of people looking for sex and end up with someone underage and giving the traffickers that incentive.  Then you can go after the people lurking in these shadows a lot easier with out catching the adults looking for a good time.  And face it most just want sex not with underage children.  The scum that do will have a lot harder finding it as there won't be such an underbelly and the risks will be a lot higher.
 I believe the whole sex trafficking is directed more towards saving children who are under the age of 18. A lot of prostitution in the USA is unfortunately those who are under age starting at age 12 or 13.
 @leanne Why is there a demand for sex trafficking?  In part because there is no legal outlet for sex for people who can't or won't get it for free.  So these traffickers grab girls and imprison them.  Sex trafficking does not just affect the underage it also affects the poor, non-native speakers and the needy/dependent.  Legalizing prostitution won't stop it all but when the only game in town is the illegal one what do we expect.
 @Dredd57  @leanne I don't think you understand that sex trafficked girls end up being forced into prostitution.  Some don't but the majority do so they can make the trafficker money.  That is the whole point of these adds the government is trying to shut down is girls are in the control of traffickers that are pimping them out to people.
 @APenny4MyThoughts  @leanne Sex trafficking is not the same as prostitution. It involves the sale or trade of an adult or child for sexual exploitation. It is not consensual, and often times the adults (and sometimes kids) are purposely addicted to drugs to make them easier to control.
Â
Where I live human trafficking (the same thing only it also includes people sold into forced servitude) is a major problem, especially the sale of foreign children. Very very sad.
Â
Legalizing prostitution will have a very minimal impact on sex trafficking because people who engage in those illicit purchases are often looking for something very forbidden (like sex with children, or a permanent non consenting sex "slave").
@APenny4MyThoughts @leanne
Â
You have absolutely NO idea what the hell you are talking about. Research sex trafficking and you will see what happens to CHILDREN.
Vague laws are those that get abused most often, this was a good decision. If they want to combat online predators, they should offer no plea bargains if there is surmountable evidence. Send them away for as long as possible with no compromises.
probably a correct decision. Targeting ISPs is like suing Weyerhaeuser for what gets printed on their paper...Â