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."
I've always wondered what's the point of these laws? I agree it is offensive to see a "NO MINORITIES" ad, but the reality is that the people who post such ads will never take a minority tenant regardless of whether they mention it in the ad or not.
It's happened to me several times that when I call a landlord they sometimes refuse to even let me see the place under the pretext that it's already taken. Then I ask my girlfriend to call, and they tell her it's available and let her go see it.
It is a case of some desperate, moneygrubbing lawyers - trying to make something off of Craig.
One option people are not talking about would be to get rid of the fair housing act, which would allow property owners the freedom to do with their property as they wish.
One problem with the current regime is that the federal housing authority usually only goes after white people discriminating against non-whites. That's stupid because these days, in places like New York or LA, most of the discrimination is taking place between different non-white groups. E.g. hispanics only renting to hispanics (and not blacks).
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Good taste is the only rule governing roommate wanted ads (as opposed to for-rent ads by landlords.) Age and career are fair game, as well as lifestyle, etc. I've seen many that say "Asian seeking same". Since the idea is that you will be sharing a living space it's all based on preference (and chemistry) and you can't really sue for discrimination.
Of course it's just simply not a good idea to say "blacks need not apply"... And no newspaper would run it... But it's not illegal.
Only to the extent that he is doing nothing to stop global warming has done his best to prevent increasing fuel economy restrictions on cars and in particular SUV and has intentionally disrupted other nations attempts to address the problem.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sounds pretty clear to me.
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
This may sound like a strange thing to say but as a lifelong tenant who's looked for dozens of apartments in a few different cities, I actually wish landlords were allowed to spell out their preferences (and prejudices.)
Fair housing laws are pretty much all lip service, IMO. It's not like employment laws where you can judge by qualifications-- there is no real way to measure who would make a good tenant. And landlords almost always have a certain type of person in mind-- maybe a newlywed couple, maybe a certain income or professional range, maybe straight (or gay) only, maybe Asian, Hispanic, White or Black. They'll take all applicants and go through all the motions because they have to, but in the end the lucky tenant is always the one who comes closest to the preconceived notion.
I'm not really saying we should go back to the days of "blacks need not apply"... But it would certainly save me as a prospective tenant a lot of time and hassle if landlords were free to let me know in advance I'm not what they're looking for.
Hmmm, read Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, then come back with your findings. Here is one interesting section:
So, does that mean that all of the "looking for a nice Christan male" advertisements are illegal because they are discriminating against non-Chritstans and females? I see those advertisements all the time.
Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.
Hmmm, shouldn't the owner of the property have a say in what roommates they should pick? After all, no anti-discrimination law will stop racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, ageism, xenophobia, and other social ills. It does no good to live in the same space as a bigot, or to accept services and goods from people who wouldn't serve me (what's better, a sign at a restaurant telling me that I'm not allowed, or shoddy service because of my background; they have to let me in, but they can give me terrible service and remain within the law as long as they don't utter a slur. And if I notice that, then I'm accused of "thoughtcrime" and paranoia.).
Don't get me wrong. I am a vehemoth opponent of Jim Crow laws (that is when a city or state uses government power to restrict freedoms of certain people), and I do not support the types of discrimination enumerated in the various anti-discrimination laws. However, I am a supporter of private property rights, too. I believe that homeowners should be free to decide which types of roomates that they want.
I wonder what other minority libertarians and minority people of other similar beliefs (such as classical liberals, small-government conservatives of the Goldwater mold, and anarchocapitalists) have to say?
Actually, quite a few poverty lawyers make quite a bit of money on civil rights laws as the statutes award attorney's fees which is usually quite a bit more than actual damages. Not that their motives aren't noble, but it's not exactly a non profit organization.
Personally, I'd pay extra to sit in the "no screaming baby" and "no squealing brat" section at the movie theater, restraunt, etc. I'd certainly pay extra to live in an apartment complex that had the same kind of rules. Unfortunately, thanks to the "fair housing" act *MY* preferences in the matter are disregarded. I end up with neighbors who have poorly disciplined, destructive children. I have had several incidents involving chidren and theft or children and vandalism. While I deal with the process within the law, I would rather not have to deal with it at all. It's a PITA. If I had property to lease out, I'd certainly want to put things like "No kids and no pets."
While we're on the subject, I'd also like to see a "No jackass screaming into the cell phone section", especially at the movie theater. Face it, we all have things that annoy us. Why shouldn't people be allowed to be upfront about that? I understand that what we're looking to prevent here is the creation of ghettos, in the true sense of the word, were people are segregated to specific sections of town. I think, though, that unless you're posting about 5 units or more, it shouldn't apply.
If I'm leasing a room in my house, theres a lot of trust and personal comfort involved in that. My jewish families won't let someone who isn't jewish stay with them, because of the Sabbat. Sabbat begins on Friday at sunset and ends at sunset on Saturday. Specific rules must be observed during that time. Some sects of Christianity feel the same way about Sundays. I'm sure other religions have similar issues.
Bleh! If people want to discriminate, let them. They'll do it anyway, at least if it's in the open, you can save your time.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
And suppose you are a good white Christian who hates all minorities, gays, Jews and Muslims? Should you be able to post THAT ad?
I guess it depends on whether you believe in free speech or not. If you do, then yes.
Anti-discrimination laws are anti-freedom laws. There was a time when giving up a little freedom to deal with the discrimination problem might have been the right choice. It worked. Discrimination is a smaller problem now, so the laws are less needed. Now freedom should be at least partly restored.
It's time to put the ad-police and the house-rental-police and the diversity-enforcement-police out of work.
It seems reasonable to me to want roomates of the same religion. I wouldn't want to share a room with an 8 year old, a muslim wouldn't want to share a room with a catholic. I found on the craigslist website http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.housing.html
Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.
Well, during the Civil Rights Movement, the original focus of the movement was to topple the Jim Crow laws, which stifled the freedoms of African-Americans (and other minority groups). Segregation was enforced throughout many businesses and government services, especially in Southern states; in fact, it was against the law for a business to not practice segregation. Affected people weren't even allowed to vote in many locales without many strings attached (such as literacy tests), despite the 15th and 19th amendments.
The Civil Rights Movement toppled all restrictive Jim Crow laws, and the people were finally free. They achieved many other acts such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which are compatible with freedom. However, the Movement shifted from liberty-based goals to a egalitarian-based goals. Certain civil rights leaders and politicians started pushing for more egalitarian-based regulations that (ironically) restricted the freedoms of private property holders to associate (or disassociate) with certain people. For example, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 are of a different character than the eariler acts. Plus, the entire politics of the nation at the time has switched from a limited government, conservative administration to an administration, which values egalitarianism over liberty (look at Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. The federal government expanded like melted butter during his tenure).
I am very grateful for the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement. However, certain legislation made during that area comes at odds with individual liberties. Besides, racism (and other forms of discrimination based on other characteristics) is still alive and kicking. No laws can or will eliminate those forms of discrimination. Those are social things that government can't fix. As Barry Goldwater said, "you cannot legislate morality." Perhaps it is time to rethink the role of government in social issues.
Pro Choice goes both ways.
For instance, by your definition of "Pro-choice";
Your new boss comes over and fire you for not being "his/her" kind. That's a pro-choice, right?
Your landlord tells you that he/she is not renewing your lease because you are not his/her kind. Pro-choice right?
Gas attendant doesn't want to serve your kind. Pro-choice? Yup.
Your application for a loan is turned down because Bank doesn't want your kind running business in the neighborhood. Pro-choice! yeah~
Your kind can't use his/her kind's bathroom because bathroom isn't for your kind. Pro-choice written all over.
Your kind can't shop at his/her kind's store. You have to walk 20 miles down the road to shop at your kind's store. Pro-choice is the brand of that sneaker!
Get the point?
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
No idea what it's like in the US, but in the UK receieving money for sex is legall, giving money for sex is illegal, I think offering sex for money is legal, but offering money for sex isn't - and the laws about brothels are just strange.
All in all it's perfecctly possible that this might be legal.
James P. Barrett
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.
I would never discriminate against someone for their religous beliefs, but I'm likely to mock them. You cannot ban satire.
There is an important difference between freedom of speech and discrimination. Everyone is willing to accept you as members of society, but no one is safe from satire. I'm sure you'll come to terms with it.