> Two, what the heck does "knowingly facilitate" mean? In law it is not about what you know, but about what you can prove. A person's belief system or fantast

> Two, what the heck does "knowingly facilitate" mean? In law it is not about what you know, but about what you can prove. A person's belief system or fantastic truths are not evidence of a crime. In your GMail example you have a reasonable faith that people may use the service to engage in communications in facilitation of a criminal enterprise. Your faith is irrelevant. You must have the email communications in hand along with a valid search warrant. That isn't what most people are losing their minds over. People are losing their damn minds, according to wonderfully mature comments on the earlier news article at ArsTechnica, on two points: 1. This law is hostile to any legally valid sex business. 2. This law holds web site owners responsible for the content that appears on their site. My opinion on those two: 1. Sex businesses whether legal or not are generally considered a social vice much like alcohol and tobacco. There are all manners of legal restrictions upon commercial communications generally, and particularly for services and products that are considered vices. They are heavily restricted in where they can advertise and any media that violates such laws can be held responsible. This has been a thing for decades, so it is only fitting that it should apply to sex businesses which are slowly creeping towards wider legalization. 2. Web publishers get all kinds of legal passes that publishers in other mediums don't get under the guise of third-party attribution. Web site owners should be liable for the content that appears on their site. This has been true somewhat from a civil perspective ever since Viacom slapped the shit out of YouTube in a multi-billion dollar law suit[1], but it hasn't been criminally true. This law cracks open the door for potential criminal violations, is panic for businesses that publish user contributions in order to monetize third-party advertising. Speaking about web-site owners being held liable for the content on their site this reminds me of SOPA[2]. I know this made a lot of people cry (with really big tears), but is far more upsetting to social media companies. It isn't because of potential free speech restrictions or unnecessary regulation. It upset social media business, because it would have crushed their business model. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act