Craigslist Sued For Violating Fair Housing Laws

The Actual postings... by MorderVonAllem · 2006-02-10 15:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

...are not the property of craigslist, it has far too many listings per day to constantly check each and every post to make sure it follows all applicable laws for each state it is accessible in. It's essentially a clearing house and as such it is protected against such lawsuits anyway.

Re:The Actual postings... by maggot4 · 2006-02-10 17:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Craiglist has absolutely nothing to worry about. It is an issue of editorial control. Unless it can be proven that Craiglist limits certain types of free speech in favor of another, they are just fine.

It would be like holding the owner of a stadium responsible when someone in the crow yells something that could be considered ofensive.

--
Innovate or become obsolete.
Re:The Actual postings... by rs79 · 2006-02-10 18:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

(IANAL)

If a newspaper prints discriminatory ads they're liable as they e3xercise editorial control. Thet know what they're printing and (in theory) know what they're allowed to print. They're a publisher.

If I pin up an ad for a house to rent in a super market and then when somebody enquires via the telephone and I say I only want 19 yr old blond nymphomaniacs as tennants, can you sue the phone company? No. Why? As a common carrier Bell cannot control what is being said.

CL is a common carrier, not a publisher your honour. Move to dismiss.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
Re:The Actual postings... by koltrane · 2006-02-10 23:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

As for going to hell, we all know there's no such place as heaven or hell. You don't seriously believe that nonsense do you?

Yes, of course I do. Truth does not cease to be truth merely because you wish it to be falsehood, and all the bloviating and animadverting you wish to publicly display will not change that.

Now if you will excuse me, I am off to EAT THE FLESH OF GOD AND DRINK HIS BLOOD.

This is hate-filled, vitriolic flamebait, pure and simple. I know you were trying to be funny, but you failed. It's interesting how those secular humanists who sing the hue and cry of tolerance are always at the ready to mock Christians in the most nasty (and juvenile) way possible. The truth has a way of bringing out that type of behavior in those who have turned their backs upon it.
Re:The Actual postings... by Shanep · 2006-02-11 00:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

They are caused by people like you who are unable to see another point of view of the world, regardless of what that view may be.

On the contrary, I was FORCED through Catholic teachings for more than 10 years as a child. I got one of those points of view rammed down my throat by Nuns who were known for their brutality (I copped my fair share) and Priests and Brothers who are known for their soddomy of little boys (thankfully I missed out on that one, but came close). My post is merely to point out how crazy it is that people put all this emphasis on what is written in some old books, when a lot of what is written in those old books is pretty much incredible fairytale esque stuff that cannot be backed up in the real World and flies in the face of real science.

Sorry but I think for myself and reject faith.

--
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
Re:The Actual postings... by VendettaMF · 2006-02-11 02:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

You know these protests about cartoons of Muhammad? They are caused by people like you

You say that like it's a bad thing.

In the short view, these cartoons have brought to light a very important fact (which various media outlets are scrabbling to bury again). The middle east and other affected areas are by and large still culturally and socially backward. 17th/18th century backward. Which isn't to say other countries and cultures have all the answers, but we don't burn or bomb their embassies every time they print mockeries of (for example) the vatican hierarchy, Jesus or the beard in the sky modern christian god. Which they do. Non-stop. It's surprising to find a cartoon (in those areas which actually allow pictures) or editorial in any of the media there that isn't scathing, mocking and considerably more offensive (and deliberately so) to all that the western religious fanatics hold dear.

In the long view, there are two viewpoints. Correct and incorrect. Otherwise known as religious and non-religious.

I have very few genocidal wishes, but the day the atheists and deists finally eradicate each other completely in a 3 way war and leave those of us with working intellects in peace will be a very very good one. I just hope they can be reasonably professional about it and take their propagandistic "holy" books with them.

--
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
Re:The Actual postings... by rs79 · 2006-02-11 03:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

"CL provides editorial control - it sorts and categorizes the advertisements. It publishes in that it amalgamates ads and makes them public (which Bell does not). It actively edits the content of the site. CL is not a common carrier. (That's how BBS systems remained common carriers, there was no editing or moderation of posts, while Prodigy was ruled to not be a common carrier - they did provide mechanisms for editing and moderation.)"

Prodidy was deemed not to be a common carrier - fair enough, private carrier - because it employed a staff of editors that would monitor content and delete it where it felt appropriate.

Compuserve did not do this and was afforded private carrier status.

CL does not monitor or remove posts, rather the user comminity does. Cl merely provides the infrastructure for this to be possible.

This makes it much more aligned to our tradition definition of private carrier than a publisher.

http://www.mttlr.org/volthree/frieden_art.html

In Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., a New York court held that the Prodigy commercial on-line information services company rendered itself liable for defamatory statements carried over one of its electronic bulletin boards, because it actively assumed the task of monitoring the messages and held itself out as exercising editorial control:

By actively utilizing technology and manpower to delete notes from its computer bulletin boards on the basis of offensiveness and "bad taste," for example, Prodigy is clearly making decisions as to content and such decisions constitute editorial control. . . . Based on the foregoing, this Court is compelled to conclude that for the purposes of Plaintiffs' claims in this action, Prodigy is a publisher rather than a distributor. . . . Prodigy's conscious choice, to gain the benefits of editorial control, has opened it up to a greater liability than CompuServe and other computer networks that make no such choice.

In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., a court gladly exempted an on-line information services provider from liability by choosing a "hands-off" approach to content:

CompuServe has no more editorial control over such a publication than does a public library, book store, or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for CompuServe to examine every publication it carriers for potentially defamatory statements than it would be for any distributor to do so . . ..
Technology is rapidly transforming the information industry. A computerized database is the functional equivalent of a more traditional news vendor . . .

Move to dismiss.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
Re:The Actual postings... by rjshields · 2006-02-12 08:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, of course I do. Truth does not cease to be truth merely because you wish it to be falsehood, and all the bloviating and animadverting you wish to publicly display will not change that.
Religion is not the truth, it's invented by mankind. You might consider religion the truth, and I hope you enjoy it, but people with sense and enough insight to think for themselves knows it's invented.

--
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.

For real? by iamlucky13 · 2006-02-10 15:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Wait a sec, doesn't craigslist have one of these?

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

And surely there must be some similar cases that have been brought up (and dismissed, I hope) before.

Re:For real? by Zeinfeld · 2006-02-10 16:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
And like the sign in the garage that says 'we are not responsible for anything' it has no effect. The point of those disclaimers is that they discourage the ignorant from filing suit, not that they have legal effect. If you can proved that you suffered a loss as a result of negligence on the part of the garage then you can sue, the right to sue for negligence cannot be surrendered under contract law.
I don't think that the arguments being advanced by the Internet legal experts are the right ones for craigslist to use. They are the ones that those lawyers would like craigslist to use but that does not make them the ones most likely to win this particular case.
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.
If craigslist did win that way it would be a shortlived victory. Congress would clarify its intentions soon enough.
The best defense for craigslist is to do what they are doing and saying that they have taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that discriminatory ads are not published and that these precautions are effective.
Saying 'not our problem' is the worst thing they could do. Courts do not like people telling them that the law does not apply to them.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:For real? by Quadraginta · 2006-02-10 19:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Courts do not like people telling them that the law does not apply to them.

I'm not sure this is true. I think the question of whether a given Court has jurisdiction, and whether a given law applies to a given situation, are both arguments that lawyers routinely make before a Court. I don't think Courts think these arguments are tantamount to saying the law doesn't apply to someone. They're just saying a particular law doesn't apply, or a particular Court doesn't have jurisdiction.

Indeed, I think questions of jurisdiction and applicability of the law are often raised first by good lawyers, because they can be decided by a judge in preliminary hearings -- the expense of a trial is not necessary, and if they win on these "procedural" questions, then they don't need to win on the merits.

In this case, for example, the Craigslist people would make this argument: Judge, even if a trier of fact (e.g. a jury) finds that each and every allegation made by the plaintiff is true, they can't prevail, because the law does not make what they say we have done illegal. If the judge buys this claim, boom, Craigslist wins immediately, and doesn't need to present a shred of evidence as to what they did or did not do, or intended to do. It's a very cheap victory.

So I would expect they will raise these arguments first. If they lose, then they will argue that they were not, in fact, discriminatory as defined by the law. I find it significant that the lawyers quoted think the suit is entirely without merit, a complete nonstarter. Given that the AP will be sympathetic to the plaintiffs, if they could have found a respected lawyer to say they stood a chance, they would have.

Incidentally, I don't agree the FHA is on sturdy legs here. The constitutionality of the FHA rests on a fairly creative interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which is why it does not -- and cannot -- apply to strictly private transactions, meaning those in which none of the parties is "in the regular business" of buying, selling, or renting property. If the Court finds that Craiglist is just a conduit here, just a way for one private party to communicate to another, like posting in a chat-room or standing up at a neighborhood barbecue and announcing you've a room for rent, then I don't see how the FHA can apply.

Lawyers looking for work? by core+plexus · 2006-02-10 15:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I am against discrimination, I believe there are far too many lawyers looking for fame and fortune.

This case is a non-starter, and the Judge should sanction the plaintiffs, IMO.

Why sue the messenger? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 15:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

...shouldn't it be the folks who placed the discriminatory ad, rather than the publisher, who should be held accountable?

I'm Pro Choice by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 15:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

I believe individuals have a right to decide with whom they transact business. Like most people, I have my personal likes and dislikes. I don't want the state imposing its will on me. Government does not belong in getting involved with personal choice.

Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 16:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is nothing wrong withd discriminating when choosing a roommate. Some people naturally feel more comfortable living with the same sex. Some people are more comfortable living with people their own age.

They listed:

race, gender, family status, religion

Race - although there is no good reason to discriminate based on this, some cultures have attitudes that create conflicts.

Gender - some people (maybe most) are more comfortable being roommates with the same sex.

Family Status - If I'm a college student, I don't want to be living with a single mother with a baby. That's not the housing situation you want to be in. People live very different lives and some people in some situations just don't fit together.

Religion - If I'm a christian, I probably don't want a large atheist symbol decorated around the house.

You see, in situations where it doesn't matter, discrimination is bad. In the case of living situations where roommates must get along, it's a necessity.

You can't stop the discrimination anyway. Everyone has their preferences. Whether they screen in their post or after someone calls, people will still get screened, so the attempt is largely ineffective anyway.

Re:Bullshit. by rgoldste · 2006-02-11 00:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

The "you can't stop discrimination anyway" attitude, had it been made policy, would probably have blocked the tremendous progress the U.S. has made in race relations and civil rights.

Under your logic, the Supreme Court should never have ruled school segregation was unconstitutional because they predicted white-flight from urban schools. Imagine telling Chief Justice Warren, "Don't bother upholding the constitution because whatever you do, the white folks will still have their white-only (or white-dominated) schools. They'll just move to the suburbs."

Furthermore, the "you can't stop discrimination anyway" attitude is empirically wrong. Laws don't change attitudes overnight, but the law is a tremendously powerful normative force. Before Loving v. Virginia, anti-miscegenation laws were common and interracial relationships--to say nothing of marriages!--were taboo. Roughly 40 years later, most people (or at least, more people) don't bat an eye when they see interracial couples, and some people think it should be positively encouraged.

Fair housing laws are on the same line, in that by prohibiting many types of discrimination, they are an expression of social condemnation of those types of discrimination. By increasing the costs of discrimination, they further make rational actors engage in it less. And since discrimination is founded upon ignorance and fear of the unknown, forcing different races, religions, etc. to cohabit is a powerful way to reduce or eliminate discrimination in the long run.

In response to your objection that some people feel more comfortable living with others of similar background, the Fair Housing Act generally exempts single-family residences and dwellings intended for four or fewer families, if the owner resides in that dwelling. 42 U.S.C 3603(b).

Housing Discrimination = better than alternative ? by freddie · 2006-02-10 16:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

A lot of people on craigslist are looking for roommates. That is something more than just renting some random piece of property to a random person. Most people looking for roommates may have in mind somebody of an age-range, ethnicity, religion, or sex that is compatible with them. People ought to be able to select roommates on whatever criteria they feel is appropiate.

Suppose people feel intimidated and stop posting their preferences in the ads. They're still going to have their preference though they might not tell you. For example, suppose you are a girl, and the person is looking for a male roommate. Then you'll end up showing to see a property that the owner is not really prepared to rent out to you, wasting your time and wasting their time. I don't think anybody really wants that.

Publisher or distributor? by beldraen · 2006-02-10 16:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

IANAL.. blah, blah, blah..

In general, if a service makes no attempt to censor its contents, it can be considered a distributor and is not responsible for its content; thus, that is why internet news groups do not get ISPs in trouble. If Craig's list makes any attempt to regulate the content (removes postings, states criteria, etc), it is a publisher and is subject to being liable for its content. As for where they stand? That's going to be up to the court.

--
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me

Re:That explains it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 16:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course that statute is in direct violation of the constitution and the right of free association guaranteed in the bill of rights. If I'm a Christian, and I have a room to let, I have EVERY right to deny satanists or blacks or women or three-headed pink wobbleboynkers from Neptune if I so desire. Nobody has an inherent right to be able to live on my property.

Freedom of Association by Void+Incarnate · 2006-02-10 16:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whatever happened to people being able to freely associate, or not, with whomever they want? If someone has a place to rent and they only want to rent to a particular group, or exclude a group, who is anyone else to tell them what they can do with their property?

Re:Freedom of Association by damsa · 2006-02-10 17:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can freely associate, if you live in the property. You can discrimnate all you want. It's when you are using the home for income, then there is a problem. The act of excluding certain people from housing has a detrimental effect on commerce. If a motel refuses to rent to Canadians, then the city would lose money from Canadian tourists or there is a danger that Canadians would be forced to sleep out on the streets. So when you do business that is open to the public, you agree to certain rules, including the rule that you take in Canadians.

Re:it's not a *newspaper* by Vellmont · 2006-02-10 16:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Well, assuming the 1996 law truly does cover online service providers, why would it cover blog authors? A blog clearly IS a publication, and obviously that's it's intent. Why would you think a blog author is an online service provider?

--
AccountKiller

Re:This is utter stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 16:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

You are wrong. Citizens have a responsibility to disobey corrupt laws. If we can learn anything from the late Dr. Martin Luther King, it is that. Civil disobedience against onerous "laws" is our duty as free men and women. Uncle Sam needs to stay out of our bedrooms in every way. Government interference with individual choices is intrusive, onerous, and beyond the pale. Just because some corrupt officials can push through a "law" does not make it "a right".

Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ by Wordsmith · 2006-02-10 17:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure. Think about it this way: If you were a gay Jewish-born Muslim convert, would you really want to live with the guy who posted it?

People need to wrap their heads around the idea that freedom includes the freedom to be a jackass. Some people have offensive views. They should be allowed to express them; others should be allowed to refute them. And they should be allowed to do with their own private property as they please; no one has an inherent right to live with me, and I'm only going to enter into an agreement to share my home with someone I find agreeable - I don't need to justify my definition of "agreeable" to anyone but myself. And if I'm looking to rent out a home, I should be able to rent it out to whomever I please. If I want to artificially cut out a segment of potential renters, thereby reducing the marketability of my place and possibly its dollar value, so be it. I'm a jackass for it, but again, no one had a right to that property, and no one had an opportunitiy to use it until I chose to put it on the market anyway.

Hmmmm by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · 2006-02-10 17:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

This brings to light an interesting observation. When I was visiting China, I noticed there were few laws and even less enforcement. As a result, a true free market exists, where open discrimination seemed ok. Employees were discriminated on looks, age, height, etc. Customers can pay more to not have to wait in line at certain restaurants, etc.

In the U.S. thought, you have a myriad of laws and regulations that restrict what people can do, where, etc. The idea is to have fair trade, not free trade.

Seems backwards doesn't it? A communist country has less regulations, while a democratic country that prides itself on capitalism isn't really true capitalism.

--

eTrade SUCKS

Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 18:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

China may be Communist on paper but none of its modern day policies reflect any sort of communist type of system.

That sucks. I'd want to know. by r00t · 2006-02-10 18:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should I have to waste my time visiting a place if the landlord will pick someone else anyway?

What if it was something invisible, like religeon or sexual behavior? I might actually sign a lease with a landlord who will hate me as soon as he discovers that I'm not the sort of person he expected!

Think of all the ways a landlord can screw you over. Now imagine he totally hates you. Wouldn't you rather have had some warning? Wouldn't you rather have rented somewhere else?

Making discrimination illegal doesn't make it go away. It's still there, without any warning signs.

Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ by geoff43230 · 2006-02-10 18:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good evening,

Merely a list of 'exceptions' to the original idea ; Wordsmith raises some valid points and certainly has a right to express them.

1. If you rent, you don't really get to dictate your roommate-hiring policy, 100%. Not really. You sublease without a contract, you get prosecuted. People may not like the "crazy" equality laws of sub-leasing to others, but they Will abide by them so long as they are renting, etc. from someone else. Obviously - we hope - 99% of people aren't going to have a "problem" renting to someone else if they absolutely need to. But, none the less.

2. How nice we live in a world where everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion etc. has such disposable income as to be able to afford any property, period. "thank goodness people other than white, straight males aren't discriminated against everywhere else in society!" Let us deny people a few dozen crucial resources and see how many inane "clubhouses" are formed. "Sorry, can't come into this treehouse until you get a job in a white man's world. Oh, and an education, haircut and sexual preference I approve of. Thanks". This is how too much of "organized" "religion" works, as well.

3. It's also amazing people have been able to "own" property ; some have been working for years to take it with them "when they go" (e.g. die). Shouldn't a bunch of plasma, then dinosaurs, cave people and Native people own the land then? After all they got there first. Shorthand : nobody really 'owns' anything. You're borrowing. Yeah, really. There is no spoon.

Anywho, just some additional "food for thought".

Re:Housing Discrimination = better than alternativ by layer3switch · 2006-02-10 19:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Anti-discrimination laws are anti-freedom laws."

I have to disagree. By your definition, act of discrimination doesn't violate other's freedom. But that's false.

Discrimination is nothing less than anti-freedom which imposes one's discrimination to hinder other's freedom. I am not talking about racial only issues here, but rather more general sense.

For instance, if your IQ does not fall under one's preferable level (and I'm not saying that to insult you or anyone or it's true), are you willing to accept that your freedom to learn or to have access to facility to learn can be compromised?

In my opinion, prejudice is everywhere and we are all guilty of it, however act of discrimination violates every sense of freedom there is and degrades fellow human beings' quality of life and pursuit of happiness. Now, what's so better about that?

--
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."

Not really by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-10 23:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

"They're speaking about living feeling people as if they're worthless objects to use and then discard."

You must be talking about the way we discuss any kind of celebrity. Angelina Jolie? She's hot, but now that she's knocked up, I wish she'd go away. Miss America? It proves that you can get intelligent, attractive women to put on a bathing suit to be judged on the basis of their breasts and how nice their ass looks. And then afterwards, we watch them continuously because we care about these women as people, and now just pieces of ass.

I guess what you're talking about *happens all the time in every aspect of life*. I'm judged at work by how well I perform my function. What is it so awful that a prostitute is judged by how well she has sex? Prostitution is honest work... why shouldn't it be graded like anything else in this world?

And anyway, the current "powerbooks" have been misnamed for 2-3 years now. Any G4 notebook in 2006 is called a "mediocre-at-best-book". Since apple has gradually eroded the value of the name "powerbook", it really is time to move on.

Legalize discrimination now! by spiritraveller · 2006-02-11 00:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Making discrimination illegal doesn't make it go away. It's still there, without any warning signs.

It should be perfectly legal to murder, rape and rob, because passing laws isn't going to make those things disappear. In fact, people will always be prejudiced, so let's legalize full-scale racial discrimination in housing, hiring, and education. People are always going to do evil things... so why should we bother stopping them?

It may still be there. But making it illegal means that people have to take care not to get caught. It means that they know society disapproves of their actions. It means that most landlords will follow the law, and of those that don't, some will get caught.

Yes, discrimination will always be there... but certain kinds of discrimination are illegal because they are incompatible with a free and just society. If you are willing to disregard that simple fact because it might inconvenience you in some minor way, maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in.

Re:Legalize discrimination now! by pla · 2006-02-11 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

It should be perfectly legal to murder, rape and rob, because passing laws isn't going to make those things disappear.

Like hyperbole much?

People are always going to do evil things... so why should we bother stopping them?

Except, stopping advertisements expressing such prejudice doesn't stop the prejudice itself. It just prevents people looking for a place to live/work from having any sort of warning that they will waste their time by applying.

maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in.

Ah, you apparently use "free and just" in the neocon sense... What about a right to free speech? Free association?

I have the right to refuse to sell/rent/employ/associate with you for absolutely no reason, simply because I might not "like" you. But that becomes illegal the moment I admit my dislike derives from you following the Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?

No. That doesn't stop prejudice. It stops speech, it stops people expressing their opinions. "So maybe you should ask yourself whether a free and just society is the kind of society you want to live in."

the trouble is that restricting speech isn't legal by Russ+Nelson · 2006-02-11 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

The trouble with restricting discrimination by controlling speech is that Congress doesn't have the authority to abridge the freedom of speech. If you really want to shut people up, propose and pass a constitutionall amendment. "Oh, that's too hard", you say? Well then tough luck -- live WITHIN the constitution -- ALL of it.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist

Slashdot Mirror

Craigslist Sued For Violating Fair Housing Laws

33 of 429 comments (clear)