I live in Seattle, and had read some about this bill. The local paper supports it, and their latest editorial specifically argues against the idea that legitimate businesses have anything to fear: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2018389853.html
That said, I trust the EFF and Internet Archive to have a better understanding and appreciation for these issues than some lawmakers who admit that they are specifically targeting backpage.com, one particular site that runs a lot of local sex ads.
I think you're right to trust the EFF more than the Seattle Times here.
That editorial says "The law was narrowly crafted to target Backpage", and that the law is only aimed at "classified advertising company representatives".
In fact, only one of those four words appears in the bill at all -- "advertising" -- and only then to define it so broadly that it can apply to virtually any public speech or writing.
Backpage is owned by Village Voice Media, which publishes alternatively weeklies, including the Seattle Weekly.
It's no surprise that the other Seattle newspapers (Seattle Times, The Stranger, another alternative weekly) would be trying to stick it to their competition.
That said, I trust the EFF and Internet Archive to have a better understanding and appreciation for these issues than some lawmakers who admit that they are specifically targeting backpage.com, one particular site that runs a lot of local sex ads.
Backpage.com has also sued over the law: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2012/06/backpage-com-sue...