Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Sued For Violating Fair Housing Laws
The Good Reverend writes "The Associated Press has a report today about online classified site CraigsList being accused in a federal lawsuit of violating fair housing laws by publishing discriminatory classified ads. Current law, which applies to newspapers, prohibits ads that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, family status, religion, all of which can be found on Craigslist."
Well duh, it's Craigslist. I can also find prostitutes, free porn and Madeline dolls.
-William Brendel
I was wondering why craigslist added the following text to all their housing related pages:
Fair Housing Is Everyone's Right
Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal
When making any posting on craigslist, you must comply with section 3604(c) of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
(although we're in the 7th Circuit, and the issue is therefore a little more subtle, you can bet your sweet bippy the above will be dispositive)
If it was free service as in Slashdot posting free, sure, it shouldn't matter what crackpot ads are on Craigslist. BUT that's not the case. Craigslist DOES take money for posting ads by collecting fee from ad posters.
Hence Craigslist is directly responsible for allowing discriminatory ads.
Get the facts.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
craigslist is not a newspaper. if the law is that specific, then however flawed it may be today, it still does not apply.
also, from the article:
EBay Inc. owns 25 percent of Craigslist.
perhaps someone is just smelling easy money?
The site last month added a yellow link on each housing ad warning that "Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal." When clicked, users get information about the Fair Housing Act and guidance on how to write ads that comply.
that, along with a disclaimer stating that postings are the property and sole responsibility of the poster should remove craiglist's legal responsibility; however they can be good net citizens by taking some editorial control over listings (which they've also done); *especially* if they're being paid for the listing.
Several Internet law experts said the suit seems likely to fail, citing a 1996 federal law that says an online service provider isn't considered a publisher or a speaker when it merely passes along information provided by someone else.
this could come back to bite blogs right in the ass, because blogs are looking for credibility as news publishers. many contain summaries and links of other blogs, so they're just 'passing along' information as well; and they feature interactive services (such as comments, polls, and other content like a portal or other 'service provider')... yet a successful defense by craigslist on this ground would shoot that all to hell.
I think you're confused. Or you've never used Craigslist.
It doesn't cost anything to post an ad on Craigslist. And there's no traditional internet advertising (ie google adsense, yahoo ads, etc) from which to generate revenue.
I'm not sure how Craig makes money, but I'm pretty sure it's not from advertising.
Except...you're wrong.
Anyone can post a housing ad on Craigslist, for free.
Ummm, if you read the article it says that the lawsuit was filed by "Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc." which is affiliated with "National Fair Housing Alliance" not some plaintiff lawyer.
If you go to their site, it says it is a "public interest law consortium of Chicago's leading law firms" and it tries to "preserve affordable housing, advocates for the rights and interests of poor children"
And if you go to National Fair Housing site it says it "is the only national organization dedicated soley to end discrimination in housing"
While they might be looking for fame, I highly doubt that they are looking for fortune. I would say they are more like EFF, ACLU, NAACP - trying to advance their social issue through the legal system.
Now if you want to argue that judicial system is not the best system to fix society's problems...that would be a whole different issue.
There is plenty of case law that has upheld the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws such as the fair housing act. Congress did not intend to give online companies a pass on those acts and intentionally facilitate discrimination.
There's also plenty of case law saying that online services are not responsible for the content of messages published. There is no evidence that Craigslist itself was discriminating against anyone - particularly since they have procedures for removing any ads which trigger complaints.
Clear, Dark Skies
I'm not sure how the ruling will classify (no pun intended) the ads on Craigslist - though I suspect that since there is no fee involved, Craigslist will have Common Carrier or equivalent status - I'm all for holding on-line sites to the same standard as print newspapers, so long as it TRULY the same standard.
That said, the relevant sections of the Fair Housing Act do NOT apply to ads for roommates or those looking to share a place they do not own. The law involves the Owner (or the duly-empowered representative) and any prospective lessee. I'm a little fuzzy on sub-leasing, but since most of that is a huge gray market anyway (most rental contracts forbid subleasing, but it's commonly ignored), I suspect that it isn't covered in the F.H.A. Note that if you own the place, renting out the spare room does make you the landlord, and you have to abide by the F.H.A. But if you're a renter, and just looking for a roommate, well, the F.H.A. doesn't apply, and you can specify that only Left Handed, Purple Skined Demon Sycophants can apply to be your roommate.
Most likely, the suit will get a summary judgement and be punted. But it at least should make those services which DO charge think about complying with the F.H.A. Which is only, well, fair.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
Roommates fall outside of Fair Housing laws. You can discriminate all you want. You have the first amendment freedom of association clause to thank for that. The FHA applies to people renting apartments, houses and the like.
Not sure if he's specifically thinking of this act, but the Communications Decency Act will almost certainly protect them. The Ninth Circuit already came down in a very similar case (Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.Com, LLC., 33 Media L. Rep. 1636 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2005)) that the online ads were protected. While this certainly isn't binding on the present case, it is persuasive, and there are various other rulings that suggest the CDA is a very broad and powerful statute.
But, it is the start of the story. If the CDA was the end, then you would not have had CARAFANO v. MetroSplash 339 F.3d 1119. Which held that a matchmaking service was protected. This cited Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) which said that the Ebay's customer ratings were protected under the CDA.
Fight Spammers!
Of the two culprits, myRedbook is more grossly egregious in facilitating prostitution. For example, myRedbook offers reviews of prostitutes, including those who work at the Mitchell Brother's O'Farrell Theater (located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California). Law enforcement makes no attempt, whatsoever, to stop this illegal activity.
Perhaps, the "Internet Age" means "I-do-whatever-I-want Age". Just last week, Reporters without Borders discovered that Yahoo! has been enthusiastically helping the Beijing government to arrest and imprison reporters.
For a real lawyer's opinion on this matter, go here.
Your rambling post seems to have very little point other than "lawsuits are bad". Using Stella Liebeck's "hot coffee" lawsuit as an example of that is only effective if you don't know or understand the underlying facts.
. htm
http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm
-- Mark Lyon http://www.marklyon.org
It is a case of some desperate, moneygrubbing lawyers - trying to make something off of Craig.
Next time read the article before making wild attacks. It's a bunch of pro bono lawyers, so they're not getting paid, and the article doesn't mention anything about seeking economic damages; they simply want them to initiate certain measures to prevent the discriminatory ads. I think they're wrong, and they're going to lose, but I can disagree with them without resorting to the tired old ignorant "blah blah lawyers only want money" idiocy.
Several content providers (most often, but not exclusively, AOL) have been sued for content posted to their system. However, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects content distributors from being held liable for the content of postings made by users. It makes no mention of money; indeed, AOL charges its subscribers for access and has won numerous court cases on the basis of section 230.
:)
I feel so dirty... I just defended AOL and the CDA in a single post. Oh well...
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
This is hate-filled, vitriolic flamebait, pure and simple.
Considering I wrote it, I can tell you with absolute authority that it was not "hate-filled". I don't hate Christians. I do reject faith and merely wish to put forth why I think it is so ridiculous that various groups of people are willing to kill each other (the real) in the name of some things which cannot be shown to be real and are really out there.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Companies posting jobs have to pay. The revenue from those postings cover everything else. See http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/ . The only fees mentioned are under job classifieds. NYC is now a special case due mostly to shady real estate agents.
A number of people here seem to be confused as to how the Fair Housing Act applies to shared housing situations as opposed to rental or sale of entire units.
If you are advertising for a shared housing situation you are allowed to state your gender, religion, age, race, etc. Similarly you are allowed to state preferences that otherwise would not be allowed in housing ads.
Our local paper won't even allow ads that state an apartment or house for rent or sale is near a church (i.e. "Near St.Mark's"), however they do allow "wanted to share" ads with statements like "Wanted: Christian male professional to share with same". I suspect that it is a fairly safe bet there is an exception to the Fair Housing Act for shared living situations.
From what I've seen on Craigslist 99% of the housing ads that could be considered to have discriminitory language are for shared housing. I don't think I've ever seen an ad for an entire apartment or house posted that would violate the Fair Housing Act. This isn't to say such ads haven't been posted but I suspect they are rare.
Why is this? For one people tend to be much more picky about who they will get into a shared housing situation with. For another those who are posting houses or apartments for rent very likely have been in the business of renting property for a while and know the rules so don't post ads they couldn't post in the local paper.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.