INTERNET ARCHIVE’S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONCase No.: 2:12-cv-00954-RSM
focal
PLLC
800 Fifth Ave., Ste. 4100Seattle, WA 98104206.529.4827
12234567891011121314151617181920212223242526HON. RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTONAT SEATTLE
BACKPAGE.COM, LLC,Plaintiff,andINTERNET ARCHIVE,Plaintiff-Intervenor,v.ROB MCKENNA, Attorney General of theState of Washington; RANDY J. FLYCKT,Adams County Prosecuting Attorney;BENJAMIN C. NICHOLS, Asotin CountyProsecuting Attorney; ANDREW K. MILLER,Benton County Prosecuting Attorney; GARY A.RIESEN, Chelan County Prosecuting Attorney;DEBORAH S. KELLY, Clallam CountyProsecuting Attorney; ANTHONY F. GOLIK,Clark County Prosecuting Attorney; REA L.CULWELL, Columbia County ProsecutingAttorney; SUSAN I. BAUR, Cowlitz CountyProsecuting Attorney; STEVEN M. CLEM,Douglas County Prosecuting Attorney;MICHAEL SANDONA, Ferry CountyProsecuting Attorney; SHAWN P. SANT,Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney;MATTHEW L. NEWBERG, Garfield CountyProsecuting Attorney; ANGUS LEE, GrantCounty Prosecuting Attorney; H. STEWARDMENEFEE, Grays Harbor County ProsecutingCase No.: 2:12-cv-00954-RSM
REPLY OF THE INTERNETARCHIVE IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONFOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
HEARING DATE: July 20, 2012
Case 2:12-cv-00954-RSM Document 60 Filed 07/18/12 Page 1 of 23
INTERNET ARCHIVE’S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONCase No.: 2:12-cv-00954-RSM
focal
PLLC
800 Fifth Ave., Ste. 4100Seattle, WA 98104206.529.4827
12234567891011121314151617181920212223242526Attorney;
GREGORY M. BANKS, IslandCounty Prosecuting Attorney; SCOTT W.ROSEKRANS, Jefferson County ProsecutingAttorney; DAN SATTERBERG, King CountyProsecuting Attorney; RUSSELL D. HAUGE,Kitsap County Prosecuting Attorney;GREGORY L. ZEMPEL, Kittitas CountyProsecuting Attorney; LORI L. HOCTOR,Klickitat County Prosecuting Attorney;JONATHAN L. MEYER, Lewis CountyProsecuting Attorney; JEFFREY S.BARKDULL, Lincoln County ProsecutingAttorney; MICHAEL K. DORCY, MasonCounty Prosecuting Attorney; KARL F.SLOAN, Okanogan County ProsecutingAttorney; DAVID J. BURKE, Pacific CountyProsecuting Attorney; THOMAS A.METZGER, Pend Oreille County ProsecutingAttorney; MARK LINDQUIST, PierceCounty Prosecuting Attorney; RANDALL K.GAYLORD, San Juan County ProsecutingAttorney; RICHARD WEYRICH, SkagitCounty Prosecuting Attorney; ADAM N.KICK, Skamania County ProsecutingAttorney; MARK K. ROE, SnohomishCounty Prosecuting Attorney; STEVEN J.TUCKER, Spokane County ProsecutingAttorney; TIMOTHY D. RASMUSSEN,Stevens County Prosecuting Attorney; JONTUNHEIM, Thurston County ProsecutingAttorney; DANIEL H. BIGELOW,Wahkiakum County Prosecuting Attorney;JAMES L. NAGLE, Walla Walla CountyProsecuting Attorney; DAVID S.McEACHRAN, Whatcom CountyProsecuting Attorney; DENIS P. TRACY,Whitman County Prosecuting Attorney;JAMES P. HAGARTY, Yakima CountyProsecuting Attorney,Defendants, in their official capacities.
Case 2:12-cv-00954-RSM Document 60 Filed 07/18/12 Page 2 of 23
INTERNET ARCHIVE’S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION- iCase No.: 2:12-cv-00954-RSM
focal
PLLC
800 Fifth Ave., Ste. 4100Seattle, WA 98104206.529.4827
12234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1II. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1A. The Internet Archive Has Standing to Challenge SB 6251 ..................................... 1B. SB 6251 Is Preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ........ 41. SB 6251 Directly Conflicts With CDA 230 by Treating OnlineIntermediaries as Publishers ........................................................................ 52. SB 6251 Does Not Fit Into Any of the Exceptions Set Out by CDA 230 ................................................................................................ 7C. SB 6251 Violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments ....................................... 9D. SB 6251 Violates the Commerce Clause .............................................................. 13E. An Injunction Against the Enforcement of SB 6251 Is Necessary to PreventPlaintiffs, Others Similarly Situated, and the Public from Suffering IrreparableHarm ...................................................................................................................... 14III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
Case 2:12-cv-00954-RSM Document 60 Filed 07/18/12 Page 3 of 23
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Backpage v McKenna: Internet Archive Reply re Preliminary Injunction
348
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
