Washington State Stops Trying To Defend Unconstitutional Law Criminalizing Service Providers
from the moving-on dept
Earlier this year, we wrote about a ridiculous state law up in Washington that sought to place liability on service providers for the actions of their users, all in the name of "protecting the children!" The Internet Archive quickly sued to stop the implementation of the law, winning a quick injunction blocking the law from being put into place. The court made it pretty clear that the law appeared to violate Section 230 of the CDA, the federal law that grants service providers clear immunity from certain user actions.While the case had continued to move forward, Washington has now decided to stop trying to defend the law, effectively letting it die. Of course, you might still wonder why it was passed in the first place, but of course, the answer to that is basic politics. Either way, some states like to fight these kinds of things through multiple levels of appeals, wasting taxpayer money all the way, so it's nice that Washington state seemed to know to stop digging early on in the process.
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: intermediary liability, secondary liability, washington
Companies: backpages, internet archive
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Naw they just got high and forgot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they even have that right?
Does the Executive, (in the person of the state Attorney General), have the right to pick and choose what laws to defend in court and what laws to ignore? Isn't an Attorney General bound by law and/or ethics to his client, (the State), to defend the actions of the Legislature to the fullest or at least a reasonable extent?
Has case law, Constitutional law, or statute ever defined the limits of that discretion? If the Executive has the authority or discretion to ignore laws it doesn't like, effectively erasing the Legislature's role in making law and the Judiciary's role to interpret law, how can Separation of Powers still be considered in force?
I don't know the answers, and look forward to being enlightened by this esteemed community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they even have that right?
Article III, Section 21 states, �The attorney general shall be the legal adviser of the state officers, and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.�
If the Washington state legislature believes that the Attorney General has committed �malfeasance in office�, then Article V provides an impeachment procedure. Or, if the legal voters of the state believe that the Attorney General has committed malfeasance or misfeasance while in office, then Article I, Section 33 provides for recall.
Short of impeachment or recall, though, I would say that the primary check upon the Washington State Attorney General's discretion is the provision for regular election to a fixed term by the voters in the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do they even have that right?
Same situation-- Congress validly passed a law, but the Executive Branch is not enforcing or defending it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vonage to try and sue 2300 teksavvy users in canada
the claim is for 10000 each ip address that has as yet been granted to them....the person to each ip address.
sorry don't know where to share this too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vonage to try and sue 2300 teksavvy users in canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh huh...
Just like when moms used to tell their sons, "Every time you do the 'dirty little deed', God kills a kitten.". Well, every time someone opposes stuff like this, a baby is launched into outer space on a rocket and sent plummeting into the sun or to the nearest black hole. Remember hearing about all the Aztecs who sacrificed women and babies and ate their flesh? Or tossed babies into volcanoes? It wasn't because of their beliefs. It was because the people didn't pass the laws like these meant to protect children while simultaneously taking away the rights of the people.
See? This is where it starts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basic bribery, more like! the politicians wouldn't try to do anything like this unless there was financial benefit to them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy to figure out...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do something! Do ANYTHING! Even do the wrong thing! Just as long as they're seen to be doing something!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]