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."
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.
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.
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/
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.