Court Shelves Washington State Law That Would Turn Service Providers Into Criminals Based On Their Users' Behavior
from the good-move dept
Back in June, we wrote about a challenge -- from both the Village Voice's Backpage.com and the Internet Archive to a new law in Washington State, SB 6251, that effectively criminalized online service providers based on actions by their users. We've long talked about the problems of such secondary liability efforts, and thankfully the US has section 230 of the CDA that forbids most such efforts to apply secondary liability. And, indeed, the court has now granted a preliminary injunction against the law, citing the Section 230 issues, among other things. Basically, the court sides with Backpage and the Internet Archive on every issue here, finding the state's reasoning in support of the law to be weak.There are some important points in this ruling. First up, the court said that Section 230 applied, even though this was about a criminal law issue, rather than a civil law issue. Many (even Section 230 supporters) have argued that Section 230 only applies to civil law. The court notes that the law says it doesn't apply to federal criminal laws, but says nothing about state laws. And, as such, CDA 230 should be seen to apply to state laws, even if they're criminal:
If Congress did not want the CDA to apply in state criminal actions, it would have said so.So, the law is already on shaky legs due to it being knocked out by Section 230. However, the court goes further to focus on how the bill violates the First Amendment as well, targeting the suppression of speech. It's a pretty detailed explanation for how laws that target speech, rather than action, have a much higher bar, and this bill does not appear to meet that higher bar. Most importantly, the court recognizes that any laws targeting speech can have severe chilling effects, even on legal speech, and that's unacceptable under the First Amendment:
The most problematic aspect of SB 6251 is not the protected speech that it regulates by its terms, but the likelihood that it will chill a substantial amount of protected speech in addition to the unprotected speech that Defendants argue the statute was meant to addressThe court even notes that it could create chilling effects and potentially criminalize sites like Facebook and Twitter as well. While the state denied this possibility, the judge points out that it's entirely possible to read the law in that way, and that alone could create chilling effects from companies trying to avoid criminal liability. Finally, the court notes that the law also almost certainly violates the Commerce Clause, because it would regulate companies located entirely outside of Washington State.
In other words, the state is on very thin ice here, as the court isn't buying any of its arguments for why the statute is legal. At this point in the case, the discussion is just over whether or not an injunction is granted to block the enforcement of the law -- and that's now done. There's still much more to come in the case, but the law doesn't look likely to survive at this point, and that's a good thing. There are some real issues that the law seeks to take on (mainly dealing with prostitution and child porn), but it does so in such a broad way and with the wrong tool: criminalizing service providers. It's good that the courts are recognizing how this law is massively overbroad.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: liability, section 230, service providers, washington state
Companies: backpage, internet archive
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What we really need is to realize that we don't need more laws heaped on top of older laws, those older laws usually cover what we need to make illegal quite well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It implies a lack of explicit instructions as intent. That is a dangerous line reasoning when it is far more likely that someone forgot some obscure scenario.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Address the problem (pimps and underage sex slaves).
kicking the can down the line to somewhere further underground has never protected anyone.
Then they just end up on the TOR network somewhere. better to leave the low hanging fruit, so cops have something to do instead of busting stoners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though, a lot of 'sex slavery' is women and men willingly getting involved in prostitution and the cops trying to say that they are being 'forced into it'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Should make thing a lot easier for law enforcement to find then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you have anything to suggest the full 27 million comes from the sex trade of children, or was that just to make the issue look more evil?
Do you understand that the people yelling the loudest are often the ones who get a cut from lawsuits against the service providers?
Did you have anything to add to your moral outrage that Backpage and Craigslist were attacked by AG's who were more interested in headlines than protecting children?
That the lead AG was acting well outside the scope of his office, but did so to make headlines for his run for Congress?
That Craigslist was active in working with law enforcement, and still got screwed when they had a history of going above and beyond what the law required them to do.
Do you have any idea what happens when you force them off of the large platforms and they go deeper? Law Enforcement has a much harder time tracking them down and stopping them.
Your moral outrage is cute, but you seem to have only read 1 sides brochures.
People who traffic children for sex are vile and need to be caught.
Not everyone who puts up an escort ad is a child or forced to perform.
Company who sell bullets make money from people who might use them to kill others, we never intended that to happen.
Adding on the internet doesn't make it any different, if your not decrying every company who makes any object that someone can use for evil (BTW its EVERYTHING in the world) then your not applying your outrage evenly and thats wrong.
Someone driving a Ford built car committed a hit and run, under this law Ford would have to pay out money based on the actions of someone who drove a car Ford made.
Still say it makes sense?
Maybe instead of passing a crappy feel good law wasting time and money, they should have passed a law to make it easier for Law Enforcement to reach out to these service providers to locate and stop the bad people in their areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1) when the survivors are rescued,yes they attempt to turn their pimps over - and most are in jail - there are security concerns - some of the survivors i know are being stalked right now for example by their pimps. and yes, those that can testify. many of these girls have been through so much trauma it is difficult. i never said the 27 million comes from ads for children -its according to industry reports - comes from their sale of "adult ads" where the kids are trafficked. regarding the lawsuit stuff and getting a "cut" - that is completely false - the survivor groups out there and young survivors screaming the loudest get no "cut" of any lawsuit. this is a false accusation.
2) re the AG's - not sure how to answer - how do you know they were "more interested in headlines"? ag's from virtually every state in the nation have sent a letter to backpage because of kids being trafficked. why is this a problem? wow - i'm actually relieved they are looking out for kids. craiglist wasn't forced to do it - he made a move he found morally sound - and unlike backpage, adult ads aren't their biz model.
3) the difficulty is when mainstream websites like backpage and craigslist have ads for cars, toasters, baseball tickets and a child for sale. backpage is the number one platform. your argument is illogical - do we keep a crack house open in order to catch drug dealers?
4) i have no issue with adult ads - i have issue with minors and kids being trafficked.
5) not sure what you mean or how to answer
6) no one is saying that at all - i think the law is trying to ensure kids aren't being trafficked by instituting an age verification for those advertised. How on earth is this related?
7) that solves nothing - nevermind that most of the victims service providers are broke and that most law enforcemet lacks funding, the problem is that it doesn't solve the problem - there is no easy solution to this. I think folks are trying the best they can to protect kids from being trafficked.
All of your points are good and important to discuss - i guess i just feel some of these remarks are pretty snarky and devoid of human emotion. i suggest some of you go meet an 11 or 13 yr old who was trafficked on backpage. listen to their story and then tell me what you think. i would suggest you may have a different take on it. And who knows how you would feel if it was your sister, daughter, or child.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
(paraphrasing pulp fiction)
Smart and efficient solutions motherfucker!, do you have them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The first AG to take up this popular cause was going to be running for Congress, the issue was outside the scope of his office and he would have been unable to bring a case as threatened.
Craigslist was actively working with law enforcement to stop the people trafficking in children, and when they shut it down there were Chiefs who spoke out about how this hurt their ability to stop them.
Craigslist pointed out that they hoped the next service provider would be as helpful to them.
It wasn't morally sound, it was being tired of being berated and publicly lashed by media looking for a story.
So their actions put more kids at risk in the end, they removed the ability for law enforcement to stop it.
How the hell is that a good outcome?
No one was directly offering children for sale, the ads were being checked as a result of the first grandstand attempt, but "FOR THE CHILDREN" is louder than logic.
The point was bullets are used to kill people, does this mean the bullet maker has liability when someone misuses the tool and hurt someone? That is what people are attempting to shovel onto BackPage, responsibility for bad people using the tool for bad things.
No they really don't give a hoot about the kids, they give a hoot about the headlines and soundbites it generates. If they cared about kids they would make money available for law enforcement to run stings and look for the people offering kids for sex. They would fund programs to help at risk kids from falling onto the streets, they would give them safe places to go. But instead lets force the company to make changes to make us feel better and accomplish nothing but make it harder to stop the sex trade.
They are snarky, but there is human emotion and compassion.
They forced many pedophiles into the deeper shadows online, they have no idea how to find them. Anonymous showed them where they were and no one did anything, so Anonymous cracked it open on the Darknet. The FBI missed their own agent who was trading in kiddie porn.
This is about doing something big and showy, not about any real change making the world better. People have been trafficking in children online for a long time, every giant push to make it stop and chasing providers has lead them to get better, more secure, and well hidden from the eyes who should be looking for them.
We have departments with tactical assault vehicles and massive amounts of weaponry to protect small towns with no need of that type of equipment, but not a single clearing house for information on people trafficking kids and training on how to find them online.
I'm for real solutions to the problem, not hanging the blame in a big showy press conference and declaring "Mission Accomplished".
Everyone wants to ignore what BackPage has done and continues to do. They assist in investigations and provide information, that catches the bastards pimping out kids. If you drive those people off BackPage they will move elsewhere, and how many kids will be abused until someone figures out where they went?
There isn't an easy solution tied up with a pretty bow that will make this better, but declaring war on BackPage will result in more kids being abused with no one watching.
Pushing them out of sight doesn't stop the pimps or the johns, and seems way worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians Love Censorship
You Americans seem to have an exceptionally dumb bunch of politicians in power. Come on, you American voters, do your duty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians Love Censorship
-Bene Gesserit teaching, Dune, Frank Herbert (paraphrase)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians Love Censorship
The problem is because BackPages exists!!!!
Not because we underfund the police.
Not because we don't teach kids how to respect themselves and their bodies.
Not because we refuse to deal with sex work laws.
Not because we don't understand teh interwebs, and it sounds expensive to try and learn.
Not because we don't care if the problem stops, as long as it stops getting media coverage.
Oh and this law lets us collect a bunch of money we can use to do other meaningless things that get us reelected.
The prime example of why this happens is the TSA.
People screamed for something to get done, supported people being screened... because they believed they were "Good People" and this would never be used against "Good People".
Fast forward and now that the most ardent supporters are seeing their grandkids being felt up by adults they are starting to think it was a bad idea... but now we've committed billions to this, we can't stop it. We'll be unsafe, let spend more money to fix it.
These are knee jerk reactions turned into law, that solve nothing but earn points for politicians, when they really should be seen as black marks against keeping them in office. People want the fast answer, they don't want to hear that fixing a problem will take time and money. They want the wave of a pen to make it illegal and that will make it all stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians Love Censorship
In the end it's all backed, in cases like this, with the infamous "what about the children?" slogan and on it soldiers on.
We Canadians have politicians over fond of censorship as well, too. At least until it gets slapped down as unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Politicians Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Politicians Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Politicians Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Politicians Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Politicians Love Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try it out
Maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try it out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Try it out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim Karr of Free Press also has an interesting take on this as someone who comes from the Internet Freedom movement....
�We need a free and open internet and we need to abide by the Communications Decency Act; but it is morally reprehensible when a company like Village Voice Media hides behind the false pretense of Free Speech to profit to the tune of $22 million a year, while it knows children are being bought and sold via advertisements on its site. Village Voice Media needs to remove human trafficking from its business model,�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
censorship
Bill to Restrict Web Content Is Assailed in Russia
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: July 10, 2012
MOSCOW � Major Internet sites and human rights advocates sharply criticized a proposed law that would grant the Russian government broad new powers to restrict Web content, ostensibly to protect children from pornography and other harmful material.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/world/europe/wikipedia-shuts-site-to-protest-bill-for-firewall -in-russia.html?_r=1&hpw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]