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.
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.
Backpage is owned by Village Voice Media, which publishes alternatively weeklies, including the Seattle Weekly.
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.
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.
...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?
Do any children's advocacy groups support the bill?
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?
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.
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".
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...