We know the government has the power to seize assets (civil forfeiture), but now there's a new phenomena going on: the government seizing websites. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...ics/backpage-prostitution-classified.amp.html This is often based entirely on the information/data content of the website. In effect, it's a type of censorship (or at least some say it can be seen that way). It's setting a precedent for a very slippery slope. Websites have even been seized when the owners didn't necessarily do anything clearly wrong, based on how other people are using that site. The justifications for these seizures include alleged copyright infringement, protection of minors from exploitation, and the use of sites for illegal sex services. But in all cases, it's basically part of the new trend of criminalization of information. Again, in each case these types of laws sound reasonable, but they can easily be misused and are setting a dangerous precedent. Some of this is going to go back to the freedom of the press debate, as well as Constitutional issues at the federal level.
"promote" = hosting a website showing information That's where some people see concern over a slippery slope.
The government needs only a rational basis to outlaw liberty such as prostitution. Strict scrutiny is not needed such as for speech. The law need not be narrowly tailored. Backpage openly hosted prostitution, or "escorts". Taking down the site was mere enforcement of the law. Nothing to be surprised about here. If you tell everyone how to make meth, that likely is not free speech. The government can successfully argue they have a compelling interest to stop that. The 9th circuit would disagree but is often overruled by the supreme Court.