to aid a crime avoids prohibiting protected speech); see also City of Seattle v. Slack, 113 Wn.2d 850, 855, 784 P.2d 494 (1989) (loitering in a public place with intent to commit prostitution-related crimes is not constitutionally protected). The United States Supreme Court has listed “speech integral to criminal conduct” as one of the traditional categories of unprotected speech. United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 468, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 176 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2010). ¶18 Courts in other jurisdictions specifically have concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech in the furtherance of criminal conduct involving a child, particularly in the context of luring children either in person or over the Internet. See, e.g., United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); People v. Williams, 133 Ill. 2d 449, 551
holding that there is no first amendment right of access to presentence reports holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that there is no first amendment or common law right of access to documents which played no role in a judicial decision holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that there is no first amendment right to knowingly attempt to entice minors to engage in illegal sexual acts