Internet Archive & EFF successfully block Washington State law

Earlier this year the Internet Archive with EFF’s help joined a suit to challenge the enforcement of a new Washington state law, SB 6251. While the law was intended to curb advertising for underage sex workers, the language was overly broad and made online service providers and libraries criminally liable for providing access to third parties’ offensive materials, which is in conflict with federal law.

We have learned today that the challenge was successful– the law is permanently blocked. You can read more about the case on EFF’s site.

Associated Press article on this.

This entry was posted in Announcements, News. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Internet Archive & EFF successfully block Washington State law

  1. This is ‘very’ good news. What is with the statement about the Email? I have no issue with my Email address being published. If someone wants to say something they should be willing to identify themselves with their thoughts. In a true democracy, there is no hiding behind technology, we have a duty to take responsibility for what we say.

    Gerry

    • Welcome to the internet, Gerry. Your ideals are fascinating.

      Nonetheless, the reason your email address is not published is because publishing an email address on the open web is a good way to attract thousands of unwanted emails. Also, the fact that we have been allowed some freedoms, does not make us free. There is no true democracy, hence a need to protect ourselves from adverse suppressive action. We have a duty only to create a world where anonymity is no longer needed or desired.

      With Love,

      Luther Blisset

    • bill says:

      Here’s the thing, “Gerry”: there are often real-world consequences for what you say. I disagree with a school’s policy – in a really democratic world, I wouldn’t be punished for free speech, but sadly, I’d be subjected to…

      - “Bill”

    • Joe1203123 says:

      Like we don’t have enough spying going on as it is…

  2. Unfortunately we must be vigilant. There is a constant drumbeat for this sort of legislation by do-gooders and other self-styled behavior Nazi’s. Keep up the good work.

    Gerry

  3. D D Davisson says:

    I do not see it as quite this simple. Internet usage to promote illegal activity needs to be addressed just like any other media, including speech. I can not stand on the corner and yell that I can provide minors for unlawful purposes, nor should I be able to do so. The issue, of course, is the overly broad structure of the law, which needs to be addressed and curtailed, just as it was. Ii applaud those that did this, but fail to see the intent of the legislation, no matter how ill prepared it was, was intentional ‘big brother”in design.

    • Zeupater says:

      If this was only about underage pornography I would agree with you. But this is a trojan horse — it’s designed to have ramifications far beyond the publicly stated goals of the law.
      Of course minors should be protected against pornography, including its circulation on the internet, and if the right wing gets serious and writes a clear law stating this goal I would support it. Somehow, unfortunately, I don’t see them doing it
      They tried to throw in things that would include the transmission of romantic adult novels, Classical artwork including Raphael and Michelangelo — and it goes well beyond this. Remember when Rumsfeld decided to put clothes on the statue of Justice? That is an example of the mentality with which we are dealing.
      If the Right Wing had any kind of sincerity about cracking down on underage pornography rather than listening to the media conglomerates who pay for their campaigns and tell them it would cut into their internet profits (and cost jobs, no doubt they also fib) they would find far more than enough supporters to make it happen.

      • Raven says:

        Minor correction: it was not Rumsfeld who clothed the statue of Justice. He was Secretary of Defense. The official in question was Attorney General John Ashcroft. Natural confusion, though: both were George W. Bush appointees.

  4. Htos1 says:

    This is VERY good news.

Comments are closed.