It was a talking point, nothing more. They wanted to get their name in the paper by choosing something easy to make it look like they are doing something. In reality they just make it harder to track something that is hard to track to begin with. You will not get a John to say "Look officer, I bought a prostitute and I found it was really a 13yo girl from Mexico who is being held against her will to please guys. Honest, I was just buying a hooker and they gave me her."
Where I am not trying to say they should do nothing, but if there is something illegal, someone is gonna break that law. Rather than block their ways of breaking the laws, monitor them. Run stings. You could ban them all from the internet, they would just do it like they did it before, by word of mouth. You can't believe this didn't happen before the internet.
CCTV? Security Cameras have been in use before 2000 and the media has been used in trials and such. Heck DVD players had digital contents. I forsee this not even being popcorn worthy. The judge, assuming they know anything at all, should be able to see right through this
If the courts say you need a known immediate threat to get past this stay, talk to your buddies at the FBI. They are great at thwarting their own attacks and blaming it on a guy that has no ability to pull off the attack. This way you can point to this and say "SEE I TOLD YOU NOOBS THIS WOULD HAPPEN ROFLOL" and no white people will get hurt by accident. Someone who is not white might, but you don't really care about that.
And we are now headed to where this will be a thing of the past. We will no longer need to worry about companies just doing what ever they want. We will have no say in the matter as the FTC is turned into a front for nefarious deeds. All consumer protections will be stripped and tossed away like week old banana peels.
BUT, to get any money from this TAX they would have to prove that their articles are backed up by facts and failing that are unbiased. 90% of the tax would go to paying 3rd parties doing fact checking. This tax would not be paid for by tax payers but by ISPs and any service that shares the articles. If the Article is found to be lacking of real facts, then the Media company will not get any money and will have to pay a fine each time equal to the tax charged to ISPs for at least a year for every offense. They would also have to not sue companies like google for linking their articles. Also, any Linking page owner who pays the tax, those who follow the link can not be stopped by paywalls.