It will be a hearing with the judge at 4pm today.

should a restraining order actually be issued.

There is no reason why they shouldn't.  Even if the trial eventually went the other way, the time period that the Preliminary Injunction is in place would be protected by the ban on ex post facto's.

Or to engage in golden showers?  Wouldn't you agree such activities, while less than typical, are legal?  Also, that it's highly unlikely that trafficked people engage in them?
I'm pretty sure you are "still not a lawyer" but as a devotee I am sure you have "standing."
Excelsior!

and I can only believe that this is what TER has been waiting for as well.

this law would be knocked down, but these are crazy times.

https://avn.com/business/articles/legal/lawsuit-to-stop-fosta-gets-court-hearing-but-nothing-happens-787734.html

So again I say, if TER is waiting on something like this to happen, they (and we) will be waiting a hellva long time. Their efforts would be better spent making sure they have ZERO ties to the US and move forward from there!

your TER handle, your post made me curious to look at your link.  Are these REALLY  your idea of fashion models, or are you fucking with us?   Sometimes I'm a little slow to realize I'm being spoofed.  

vipgirlfriend is the same thing as switter, but made by women who realized that switter was full of backpage refugees and their tricks and didn't want that nonsense associated with their good names.

on the same page on just about every topic here, but this girl is the one with the most ads on that site.  This is not MY  idea of a "high-quality" provider.  Please tell me that you just failed to look past the first few shill ads.  Lol

You know, now that I'm looking through the general listings, it's pretty rough.

There are loopholes in the new laws and once the other side hears the others sides rebuttle they will go and write a new law and shut the ladies down again.

Loopholes, which can be corrected by new legislation, are different from potentially unconstitutional provisions.  

Or at least how I see it working in regards to FOSTA/SESTA.

and sure you can say I'm arguing semantics if that provision was the only issue up for debate, but the deeper issue is freedom of speech, which allowed ads for a potentially unlawful act to be published. If the high court were to determine that BP, CV, and other malls have no liability for the ads that they accept, it would be very difficult for the legislature to craft any new version that has the same teeth.

The ex post facto provision is clearly unconstitutional, as applies to criminal charges.  Does this also apply to civil lawsuits?  Not a lawyer, so what do I know?  Also, would the ex post facto provision be subject to being struck down only, or would the entire law be struck down as well under this?  As I see it, only the retroactive provisions are inapplicable...the rest of act would have to be struck down under 1st Amendment protections, which I see as being less certain, even doubtful.    

on whether the offending conduct is continuous past the date of the change in the law where it creates a legal civil  liability.  For instance, if you wanted to support Joe Biden for President in 2020 and you put a sign in your front yard today that says, "Make America Poor Again - Vote for Joe," and then next year the Republicans pass a law that says such a sign would earn you a $10,000 civil fine, your liability would depend on whether you pulled the sign before the law's effective starting date or left it up after the new law went into effect.  Of course, most here would agree that such a law, like FOSTA/SESTA, has some constitutional hurdles it must withstand, which, as we see, take time to sort out.  There can't be retroactive penalties or liability for things you do where there was no law against doing it at the time you did it, and so you were not doing anything wrong under the law at the time.  Civil liability is similar to criminal liability in this respect.  

Under the doctrine of severability, the court can strike the ex post facto provision while leaving the balance of the law in place since the ex post facto section was not the foundation on which the statute was based.

This is true with laws, and with contracts and agreements.  PARTS of a law or agreement that are unconstitutional, contrary to existing Codes, or against public policy, can be severed out by the courts while the rest remains in place and enforceable.  Its very possible that the challenge to FOSTA/SESTA would result in the ex post facto provision being stricken out while the rest remains enforceable, but I think the first amendment issues could not be severed without taking the teeth out of this new law.  

In their Rule 57 filing challenging FOSTA, the plaintiffs argue that the law’s regulated speech is “content based.” They further argue that content-based speech requires “strict scrutiny” review as established in Reed v Town of Gilbert. Given the law’s over reach and ambiguous language, it is unlikely it could survive the narrowly focused compelling state interest that strict scrutiny demands. If FOSTA falls, so do the amendments to the CDA as well as 18 USC 2421A. There would be nothing to salvage.