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."
...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.
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)
are they illegal? the ones like "23 yr old female seeks female to share rent, utilities"
I mean, I'd love to offer my services despite that damning gender clause
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
This case is a non-starter, and the Judge should sanction the plaintiffs, IMO.
...shouldn't it be the folks who placed the discriminatory ad, rather than the publisher, who should be held accountable?
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.
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."
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_
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.
If by "threat" you mean the "lack of an FBI dossier on every man, woman and child who might do something we don't like, which means every man, woman, child and their pets":
Yes.
KFG
You absolutely have to be kidding me. Craigslist has disclaimer's for that stuff. It's just like the people who were complaining about the fact that, in some markets, charging for listings of rental properties was "unlawful" and "unfair" when it's necessary to keep the people who are abusing the system from doing it.
Damn lawyers . . .
"I love lamp."
Here are the lawyers that are suing Craig: http://www.clccrul.org/list.htm
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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.
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.
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.
Is it applying to just official landlords who have apartments, all the paperwork, yackety yack...
or...
Is it applying to homeowners that has a spare room for rent? Ie someone that can't get ratted out if the a/c breaks and the owner doesn't fix it?
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
This /. article has been removed by the craiglist community.
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.
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
Except...you're wrong.
Anyone can post a housing ad on Craigslist, for free.
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
... to mod this one up! (posted before in this thread, you know...).
Paul B.
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.
Screw that, hold the landlord posting these tenant requirements responsible, as they're the ones breaking the law advertising that crap in the first place! If it's within the United States' borders, then these people should be following the laws of the United States when posting stuff to the internet, especially when it's dealing with real estate, and just happens to be business in the United States, which is bound by US Law, as is any other business regarding equal opportunity.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If it was free service as in Slashdot posting free, sure, it shouldn't matter what crackpot ads are on Craigslist. SO that's not the case. Craigslist DOES NOT take money for posting HOUSING ads by collecting fee from HOUSING ad posters.
Hence Craigslist is NOT responsible for allowing discriminatory ads.
Get the facts.
I like microcars
You can see it here.
Basically looks like a bunch of nothing (even moreso) when you read the response.
SYS 64738
Changing whether people post their preferences isn't actually going to change how people act. If a woman only wants a female room-mate her being forbidden to post that fact isn't going to change her preference. It only means that more people will contact her who she doesn't want to live with, and that she will have to turn down more contacts.
It just decreases the efficiency of the system, and provides a superficial illusion of change. It doesn't even remotely address any of the deeper issues actually related to discrimination which these lawyers claim to care about.
I thought I read (a few days ago) that they were going to start charging for housing ads.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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?
Yeah, now we will have to go back to waiting til the person shows up, see that they are niggers, and then tell them that the place is already rented instead of just writing, "No Niggers, please" in the ad and saving yourself a lot of time.
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.
And suppose you are a good white Christian who hates all minorities, gays, Jews and Muslims? Should you be able to post THAT ad?
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!
Political correctness has taken aim at the head of the freedom to conduct business and commerce and will kill a vehicle consumers use to economically market their wares. Big firms, the ones who can afford to police their postings, don't use Craig's List. No, it is the domain of ordinary folks. But because they are 'low budget' Craig's List cannot afford to police them and still keep rates affordable for the individual. Yeah, great idea, let's shut them down so some chump and their lawyer can earn a few buck while taking a breather from ambulance chasing. So, in the siprit of smashing a fly with a sledge hammer, let's shut this one down. Pretty soon, in this overly-litigious society, only major corporations with big money will be able to do anything public to earn money. First free speech, now the right to earn a buck--what's left of freedom after that? Just freedom to open one's wallet I guess. How sad.
They did just announce plans to charge in the near future. How much do you want to bet that this very lawsuit was the catalyst for that decision? Probably figured they're going to have to pay people to read and vet all the housing ads from now on.
Sigh. Lawyers and idiots ruin something else for everyone so they can get a few bucks..
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.
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
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.
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
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
Slashback...5 0
i gslist_and_fees.html [Jan. 12, 2005]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/04/20242
From Craigslist...
http://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=20040204
Digg's post...
http://digg.com/links/Craigslist_to_Charge_Fees
It's been talked about for awhile...
http://www.siliconbeat.com/entries/2005/01/12/cra
Now, I do admit I am a bit off on the fact myself and I do thank you for correcting me. I appologize. However it's evident that the Craigslist fee to post Housing Ads should put Craigslist directly responsible for the quality of the ads on Craigslist. For example, the job posting in NYC requires paying Craigslist fee, and that puts Craigslist directly responsible for ads violating "equal opportunity."
Further more, Chicago or not, it's the same service and there is no rule that prohibits anyone living abroad from looking for housing in Chicago even though posting ads in Chicago may be free. Therefore if Craigslist is charging fee for posting ads in NYC, the same quality control should apply to every housing posts in every city.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
For a real lawyer's opinion on this matter, go here.
"How much do you want to bet that this very lawsuit was the catalyst for that decision?"
It's been talked about for awhile and planning to charge for job and housing ads. At least over two years. I remember, Craigslist, instead, start charging job ads first in selective region to test the water and get feedbacks from community.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Technically I am not wrong since I didn't say "charging for Housing ads" but just "ads" but I'll bite.
[posting jobs in NYC on Craigslist]
https://post.craigslist.org/nyc/J?guide=yes
"Price: $25 per category (example - select 3 categories and the total cost will be $75)"
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
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.
Ignore the lawsuit. Passive protest against unfair laws.
Whatever happens, it's better than following the unjust and stupid legal system. We all have to start making our stand against such stupidity. Are we now too afraid to fight back?
Lawyers, here's your fucking slander of the day. To hell with you. You are all greedy, moronic, clueless morons that prey on not only people who dare do what they want to do, but also the companies who gladly pay you wheelbarrows of cash to do it.
"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" isn't good enough anymore. We have to fight the mindset that creates them, to keep them from spawning from the dank corners of places of unholy evil.
Shut up, lawyers. Shut up, companies. We want our freedom back. I'm not gonna take it anymore, and neither should all of you.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
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".
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
Beer is good.
> good white Christian who hates all minorities, gays, Jews ...
Huh, I guess so, but it would be false advertising.
"How fscking stupid can you iberals be? Next thing the weather you don't like will be the fault of GWB."
You know, that comment sums up what is wrong with debates on the environment, the war on social problem X, poverty, cartoon riots, immigration, gitmo, torture, blah, blah, blah,... and finally religion and politics in general.
Some random "iberal" does/says something either deliberately or without thinking it through and all of a sudden a billion "iberals" around the planet are tarred with the same brush. Next thing you know "oneservitives" are burning "iberal" flags and emabssies and "iberals" are taunting them by repeating the original stupid act/comment.
From an Australian veiwpoint GWB's current aim (as far as I can tell) is to delay the move away from oil and coal not stop it, we have the same misguided stance in our leader. Untill recently both were willfull obstructionists on the issue of climate change but politically that tactic was becoming an "emporer has no clothes" liability. Both leaders pragmatically accepted the evidence from three decades of high profile and high quality research and promptly became enthusiastic procastanators.
All this does not mean conservative leaders, oil/coal executives, republicans, born again christians, texans, white guys or any other group that GWB "belongs to", thinks or even acts the same!!!
The rest of your comment I happen to agree with but it is wasted. Most of the people you are trying to influence won't bother reading past the first sentence.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That's why some require background/credit checks and requiring 5 forms of picture identification.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
So tired of hearing about new lawsuits every day. Every day. But I guess this is the inevitability of having so many lawyers.
You can't handle the truth.
If they are like the Canadians I know, motel owners would do that because they don't want them eating all the bacon at the complimentary breakfast bar.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Google much?
...
Shakespeare's Tribute to Lawyers
As has been often proven over the centuries, Shakespeare was right: if tyranny
is to prevail, tyrants must first kill all the lawyers.
www.howardnations.com/shakespeare.html - 32k - Cached - Similar pages
Anybody who does not understand the bards quote ought not to be representing himself in court, methinks.
Need Mercedes parts ?
actually, we all do, its just a matter of proximity and how much wealth you have to keep us away
Actually, the comment prompted me to look for one. All I found was this. I must admit, the idea seems a bit silly.
The ocean parts and the meteors come down
Laid out in amber, baby.
"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."
This is a flawed argument. It leads to segregation, as those who wish to discriminate will all live near each other. Fair housing act is a good thing.
Further, if you're renting out your house, you're not "sharing" it, you're selling it. Thus it is a business. It is illegal for businesses to discriminate based on race. Get used to it. We're right. You're wrong.
"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."
:)
Are you sure about that? Eminent Domain Public Housing, a beautiful thing, ain't it? If you want to protect your property from Eminent Domain, make it a Public Housing!
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Sorry, but the U.S. is not longer really a viable place to do buisness... The legal system has become so insane, and what is more insane is a significant portion of people think it is noraml, or even good. If you have a choice not to do buisness in the U.S. (which is the case with Web based buisnesses), DON'T DO BUISNESS IN THE U.S. ... There are so many laws, they are so restrictive, and there is no common sense to as what is reasonable or not.
So, in this example, we have a law that is totally ineffective at eliminating housing discrimination... Yet, we are going to make it super-expensive or impossible to run a whole set of services, for this crappy ineffectual law.
If you are running a web based buisness, there are plenty of countries that you can run your buisness out of. Because of the nature of the internet, it doesn't matter if you are in the U.S. or not.
Mod parent up. That's incredible and disturbing.
Check out my women's designer clothing store.
Conspiracy theorists will note that the Heart Newspaper corporation and otehrs will be ecstatic at this news.. They claim large losses in advertsing from CLs free model.
On top of that, a lot of the prostitutes discriminate by race as well.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
...chosen in order to circumvent such measures in countries like Canada and the US where antidiscriminatory laws exist?
For example, about five years ago, I called a housing ad for a room in a place that stated "females preferred" in its listing. I am a male, but the ad had been up for some time, so I felt that they might be willing to overlook that fact in an effort to rent the room. I was told outright by the landlord that "females preferred" essentially meant "females only". Was this term selected as a politically correct way to state this blatantly without violating the terms of the newspaper? Is it even fair to request such things? I've never seen any ad with "males preferred", although no shortage of "females preferred" ones.
"you're not "sharing" it, you're selling it"
I do agree on certain points you are trying to make, but I have to disagree about "selling" part. Renters aren't selling. But it's about making profit from the property without loosing ownership of it.
Also it's not about renter's freedom to NOT offering to certain group of people. It's about freedom for that certain group of people to have access to that offering. The arguement people trying to make that it's about "My Freedom to not rent it to everyone" is just plain wrong. It's not "My Freedom." It's "My Preference." It's idiotic to think that one's freedom to hinder other's freedom is constitutional and be protected. There is no clause in Constitution that protects "preference" over freedom.
Freedom for ALL should to be protected, not violate for some and protect for the other.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
But what about laws being reasonable? You know that the law is going to place an enourmous burdon on Craigslist. If you have millions of ads, the cost to manually check each one to make sure there is no discimintory language is going to be pretty damn high.
Laws are not sacred. They don't exist for their own sake. They are supposed to protect us, not enslave us. If a law is unreasonable, if the costs of compliance is too high, and it is restricting a totally reasonable activity (running a online classifieds system), then the law is anti-social and oppressive.
The legal system has turned into nothing more than a system of extortion, and this is the perfect example of just the case. Aside from the law being extra-constitutional, it will destroy any online classified system that isn't backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars.
...your one-stop shop for methamphetamine and high-class hoes :)
Nice to see my hometown represented on /.
Beauty is just a light switch away.
The colonization of Mars in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles has a bunch of parallels to the development of the web.
:)
In "The Settlers", he talks about how the first ones, the "Lonely Ones", were people with dreams, or with something to prove, or with things that they wanted to escape. They went first, and their journeys made the later ones possible, but for a time they had to stand alone.
"The Naming of Names" tells how people put their Earth names on the alien soil, "Detriot II" and "Iron Town" and "Green Hill", things like that. Then, when things got tame enough, the "sophisticates" showed up, on holiday or on business. "They came with stars and badges and rules and regulations, bringing some of the red tape that had crawled across Earth like an alien weed [....] They began to plan people's lives and libraries; they began to instruct and push about the very people who had come to Mars to get away from being instructed and ruled and pushed about."
Finally, "The Old Ones" tells of the final wave of colonists--the elderly.
I dunno, somehow your post reminded me of this. Seemed relevant when I started typing it, anyway, and now that I'm done I'm not about to delete it
Among the housing ads cited as objectionable by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Inc. were ones that read "NO MINORITIES," "Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male," and "Only Muslims apply."
If the landloard lives in the same unit, it's legal to discriminate on ANY basis. In other words, if you want to rent a room in your house out to someone of your own race or gender, etc, the courts have ruled you can do so. I can see why this law exists because what if a single female wants to rent the room out to another single female? That would be against fair housing, but it's ok since it's her living unit. So, I'd imagine most of these ads are for a room rental because if you own some apartment complex, you probably only have one requirement: on time rent check.
No Sigs!
There's no such law as "facilitating prostitution." There's prostitution itself and there's pandering, both of which profit directly from the sex-for-money transaction. You might be thinking of conspiracy, but that's a stretch. Remember, there have been hooker ads in yellow pages and classifieds (look under Massage, Escort Services, Adult Entertainers) for decades.
Besides all that, vice cops love those websites. Makes it real easy to target their prey ... they don't even have to get out of their chair to make their mark.
Excellent post. Just what I was thinking.
"As long as public schools don't discriminate, I don't see a problem."
Ah, so you got a point there. It was a bad example since private schools' entrance often is based on academic standing.
"No, it doesn't. If you are discriminated by another individual or a private institution, you are always free to avoid having any deals with them."
Huh? You have confused act of discrimination hindering Constitutional freedom, with not talking to your neighbor freedom. You can discriminate all you want as long as you don't fuck with other people's freedom to live in pursuit of happiness like denying them from owning a house or walking through your town.
Let me make this clear. Lets say, you have a private collection of stamps you value a lot. One day, you decide to show it only to your cloest friends. One of your friend asked you if he/she can bring someone you don't know and happens to be "certain kind of" person. You reject. Are you discriminating? Sure, but it doesn't violate anyone's freedom since you just want to show it only to your closest friends anyway. Now one day, you decide to open it the public to see your private collection. You advertise to the world to see. Again, your friend asked you if he/she can bring someone you don't know and happens to be "certain kind of" person. You reject. Are you discriminating? Yes. Are you affecting interest and freedom of general public? Yes, because public isn't your prefered friends.
"You do not, after all, have any specific right to live in my house."
Yes, I do have a right to live in your house if you put it up for sale or rent and advertise in public. If it's your right and freedom that matters so much that only want prefered kinds to rent it, why put it up for sale/rent to begin with for all the world to see? After all, public isn't just one kind. If you want to keep it private, keep it private, not publically advertised.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
See, what I don't understand about this type of lawsuit and bickering, is this:
Make/write all the laws you want forcing people to be superficially open and polite in their ads. They'll just eliminate you when you show up. The way most people see it, it's their dwelling, they'll share it only with people that meet their criteria. That can and very likely will include racism, prejudice, religious requirements, etc. If the law can tell me how I need to advertise for the room I wish to rent, what's next, them actually trying to tell me I have to rent to the first person who can pay? I think not. As well meant as the law might be, it is obviously flawed, and I honestly wish they'd find something more useful and constructive to waste their time with than this.
Rightly or wrongly, everyone who practices active discrimination does so in the earnest belief that what they are doing will help them in the long term by sacrificing scope of interaction by minimization of risks that they see associated with certain characteristics in people. Some of these things are real, some are nonsense but regardless they are perceived as real by people who practice discrimination on those grounds. Their are many racists and sexists in this world spread fairly evenly over all races and sexes but no bigot knows that their assessments about certain groups is incorrect; if they did know this they wouldn't be bigoted because it wouldn't make sense to them anymore.
We all make mistakes about judging people by the groups in which they belong. However this is based on the human thought process of abstraction which we base most of decisions on correctly. In programming terms this would be analogous to upcasting and upcasting as we all know can lead to segfaults, but it is needed for many algorithms. You can't just argue against abstraction because it is a integral part of how we work, saying that Canadians shouldn't be treated differently is pointless when in someone's mind Canadians are (rightly or wrongly) different.
Discrimination and prejudice (also human thought processes used every day) have been vilified in their usage towards people so often that those most opposed to them have never had the courage to see how the world looks that way. Until those most opposed to bigotry learn to see things through the eyes of those who they seek to change they will never achieve anything but scare people into a repressed sense of bitterness against those who they have been forced to pretend to accept.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Online services are not responsible for what their users post (be it a message forum, want ads, job ads, for sale ads, auction site, classified ads, real-estate listings etc). If they are, then the law that covers that is broken.
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
So does Verizon. The Tampa Yellow Pages has over 70 pages of "Escort Services" with names like "Yes We Do" and "Satisfaction Guaranteed". You don't need to get any more explicit than that.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
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
"But what about laws being reasonable?"
How about people being reasonable? Is it reasonable to discriminate publically? We are not talking about private citizen being discriminatory or property owners being discriminatory in private. We are talking about discriminatory against the public.
"You know that the law is going to place an enourmous burdon on Craigslist. If you have millions of ads, the cost to manually check each one to make sure there is no discimintory language is going to be pretty damn high."
Is that the reason why Craigslist is planning to charge people to post the ads in the first place? If the cost is the reason to ignore discriminiation, then slavery is more than reasonable by any standard.
"If a law is unreasonable, if the costs of compliance is too high, and it is restricting a totally reasonable activity (running a online classifieds system), then the law is anti-social and oppressive."
It's a service and it's a choice by Craigslist to make it free for community, not by force. Charging people for service is not out of boundry of reason. For any business, costs of compliance is high regardless due to regulations and license. Craigslist is certainly no stranger to high cost of compliance. By your definition, totally reasonable activity that runs and permits illegal activity (regardless what law it is) is permissible for the sake of cost, then who's being anti-social and oppressive here? Community and Society is bound by law and ethics. The ones that do not comply with the law which protects the freedom and rights of general public is the one who is being anti-social and oppressive.
Aside from the law being extra-constitutional.."
The Law that protects the rights of individual and freedom isn't being "extra" constitutional. It's being just plain old Constitutional. Believe me, I'm no liberal or libertarian, but the law against discrimination isn't to hinder anyone's freedom. It's to punish those who violates one's rights and freedom as everyone equally protected under the law.
it will destroy any online classified system that isn't backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars."
FYI, Craigslist is backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars. eBay has 25% stake in the company. Besides that fact, if I'm to offer service that provides people to advertise commercial ads, why am I being exempt from this law where online RealEstate agency (pretty much middle man like online ad service) or online newspaper company is not? Why?
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
NYC job postings are a particular fee-based system because of the high demand and the need to keep people from posting many times to bump their postings to the top of the list. But in general, and likely in this case, craigslist is free.
My God. Those forums are truely disturbing. I can't beleive people chat about that stuff.
I have a pretty thick skin to the point of getting my news from time to time from Ogrish. But those posts are terrible. They're speaking about living feeling people as if they're worthless objects to use and then discard.
I think I care for my cat more than any of those people care for themselves.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
As I said, it's about the MONEY.
[Disclaimer from Craigslist]
# no -- it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests
# Fee Disclosure: $$$
This isn't just a post excercising on one's freedom of speech or one's right to express oneself. It's a commercial advertisement. Craigslist even charges posters for some of its service and plan to charge for housing ads later on. eBay has 25% stake in this company. Why is it so hard to accept that Craigslist isn't just some guy running a free online forum in his mom's basement here? It's a "company" providing content and at the same time commercial advertisment for community. It even has salary paid staffs in a fancy Victorian house! Just because it's "online," it's not exempted from laws against discriminiation.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Often in roommates ads, it is specified that the person needs to be gay or male/female. How different is that from a race specific(read racist) ad?
I am not arguing that Craigslist is not free. But it's a multi-million dollar company with eBay holding 25% stake in it. Back in 2004, there was report saying Craigslist revenue was around 7 million for under 20 staffed company.
Free or not, it's commercial ads. Also the company is filed as non-profit meaning tax exempt. Not some guy running a free porn shop or forum here in his mother's basement.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
jesus.. was JEWISH
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
I have never seen an ad on craigslist. I actually have no idea how they make money from someone like me who has looked for rooms for rent in Boston and San Diego, and often buys sporting event tickets.
"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.
they make money like this (although no charge to post in Boston or San Diego)
https://post.craigslist.org/nyc/J?guide=yes
https://post.craigslist.org/sfo/J
or like this starting march in NYC housing
http://forums.craigslist.org/?forumID=20040204
Local newspapers in SF/NYC lost millions on WANTAD revenue to Craigslist.
Also Craigslist being no-for-profit kinda helps it with tax also. Craigslist doesn't directly make money from majority ppopulous, but directly from advertisers who post commercial ads as in WANTAD.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
I wonder why? Oh yeah: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2006/02/craig slist_sued.htm/
Roomate.com was sued for the exact same thing and won handily. Why these lawyers would bring this suit with such a clear precedent case is beyond me.
Who wants to bet the newspaper industry is behind this?
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Craigslist charges for job listings in large cities.
The VAST majority of ads, including housing ads, are all free. Even most job listings are free, if they are outside the large cities.
Well, fashionfirst, score-of-zero, I read your comment. The moderation system creates a nice filter for the casual reader.
However, when people see a comment they are really interested in they often will dig down and read the whole thread of conversation that it prompted.
Best,
Paul
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.
I already know this, but thanks for reminding me. However the service itself is not run by city. There is no Craigslist server in Ohio and Nevada. It's run by advertisment revenue, and Craigslist maintains moderation control over all ads and posts. If Craigslist can remove spam posts and nutjob comments in forums. why is it hard to imagine the same can be applied to WANTAD sections where most of their revenue is generated from? Did I even mention Craigslist is not-for-profit? exempt from tax?
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
You mean like unnecessary dependence on foreign oil?
How does keeping the government the hell out of your life fit with performing illegal warrantless wiretaps and being responsible for the largest growth in government spending since the Johnson administration?
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Come on! Everybody knows that the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.
fair housing laws, and laws protecting ISPs and hosting services from crimes committed by comments posted on their sites don't protect sites that, themselves, violate the law.
But, go ahead, keep trying to confuse the issue. It's fun watching you flail.
Clear, Dark Skies
Would the laws in question apply to a public bulletin board on the side of a building down town? I don't think it's too much of a legal stretch to say that CraigsList equates far more to a public board than to a newspaper.
To place an ad in the paper, you (usually) have to pay money. The simple act of paying $1 a line (or whatever) invokes all kinds of interesting areas of law where things of value (cash, goods, services, etc.) are exchanged. Craigs has no such exchange of valuable consideration which should exempt it from an awful lot of things.
Now... With them starting to charge for listings in certain areas (like NYC, I think), that could open a whole new can of worms for them...
You're missing the point. The Fair Housing Act creates "protected" categories, which you (the landlord) cannot use to discriminate.
To quote the Act itself:
Thus, it protects people from being discriminated on basic, common things which we generally accept are BAD for society to allow others to penalize them for.
Now, it says nothing of Political viewpoints or many other behavior attributes, nor does it prohibit exclusion on profession; it also has allowances for large dwellings which provide a common experience for a narrower-than-normally-allowed populance: thus, single-sex and single-religion housing developments are allowed, but generally under very limited and restricted conditions, and certainly not for anything that doesn't have a moderately large number of units. Thus, if you were the owner of 10 apartment complexes, each of 100 units, it would probably be permissible to designate one of the them for Catholic Men only (for instance). However, your milage will vary (and so will local ordinances).
Without the FHA, it becomes easy to lock various ethnic/religious groups out of housing, using nothing more than social convention. And that is BAD. See the pre-Civil-Rights era for any example you want.
Free speech cannot trump everything - this is one of those cases where allowing everyone to do what they want oppresses a minority, whether they (landlords) specifically intend to or not. It is similar to requiring public businesses to serve anyone who walks in - McDonald's can't refuse to serve blacks, no matter what the owner of that McDonald's would like.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
And also posted by an AC (presumably a novice search engine spammer, or recipient of banner add cash) in response to every single slashdot story, usually multiple times.
Occassionally he/she/it changes the first sentence to match the story content, but usually doesn't bother.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
If I was renting a living unit, I could, and did, have requirements about being employed, owning pets (genuine service dogs, like seeing-eye dogs, are not pets), smoking, and the NUMBER of persons who would be living there. None of that is discriminatory. I could even refuse to accept Section 8 (government subsidezed rent, and a PITA to deal with) tenants.
I could NOT advertise "whites only", I could not advertise "Christians Only" ... and could not even say "Adults only" (although pointing out that the yard was gravelled, the schools were lousy, and asking the prospective tenant to sign a "yes I know the house is old and may have lead paint and hold the landlord harmless if my kid eats the woodwork" statement spared me from the worst of the rug-rats' parents).
Handicapped? In most of the houses, the doorways were too narrow for a wheelchair, and the bathrooms too small. Two were suitable for wheelchairs ... they rented FAST.
Despite my meticulous adherence to the law, I STILL got a fair housing complaint from a person who arrived after a place was rented. I had a policy of accepting tenants in the order they arrived, The first person to inspect the apartment rented it on sight, I had not had time to change the message on the answering machine, and a pigmentally enhanced woman who arrived right after the other person left complained, assuming that I was waiting for a white tenant and rejecting her.
After many months of evaluating feedback and deliberating, we've decided to institute a $10 fee for each listing posted to the broker apartment categories on the New York site (both "fee" and "no fee"), starting March 1, 2006.
So again- Craigslist has NOT and DOES not currently charge ANYTHING for Housing Listings.
I stand by my original post.
You really should try reading the links you post.
I like microcars
Yes, I do have a right to live in your house if you put it up for sale or rent and advertise in public. If it's your right and freedom that matters so much that only want prefered kinds to rent it, why put it up for sale/rent to begin with for all the world to see? After all, public isn't just one kind. If you want to keep it private, keep it private, not publically advertised.
Advertising is free speech. Renting a property out to someone is an association, and we're supposed to have the right to free association. And there's the property rights issue.
Free speech, free association, and property rights are fundamental rights. Lack or discrimination isn't. In order to enforce anti-discrimination, you need to take those rights away.
It is even worse than you describe - but you probably know about this already: anti-discrimination laws are responsible for urban/suburban sprawl, as productive people flee the unproductive, criminal class.
Anti-discrimination laws mean it impossible to reach any stasis, so there is a continual process of expansion and buliding out of densely populated suburbs.
Before the riots in Detroit, it looked like a European city: densely populated, developed, excellent transportation systems. Now everything is in the constantly expanding suburbs, and the quality of transpotation services is much lower, in the sense that roads/cars are expensive, and there is no decent public transportation.
If oil ever becomes expensive, look for discrimination to be made legal, or some other legal "trick" to deal with the fact that productive, non-criminal people will be forced, by high oil prices, to live close to unproductive, criminal people.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Ooops -- that's sparsely populated suburbs.
Right now the big growth areas are rural areas: productive people are moving out of suburbs entirely. That's tough on rural areas: they don't have sewer/water systems for those people, and the school systems are too small for their kids. Raise the property taxes and long term residents are hurt.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
In real estate, there are quasi-governmental "checkers" of these protected classes who constantly attempt to rent and/or buy. If you get stung by a checker, you are in deep doodoo. You had better make sure your qualifiers are legal and well represented to ALL prospective tenants. You do not want fair housing authorities sniffing around your rentals.
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.
USA legal system has nothing what-so-ever to do with justice anymore. The system serves these purposes:
1) Giant roulete wheel, it costs nothing to play, but you get millions if you win. So play often.
2) Easy money for USA legions of lawyers. Whether you win, lose, or draw; the house - er, the lawyers - always cash in big.
3) A weapon to bash the opposition. For example: if you're a huge software company, and you're afraid of competition from more innovative companies: hire a small scam-company to file nuicance lawsuits left and right. It's lot cheaper than making better products, or otherwise competing in a fair manner.
4) A giant playground for kooks who love to bitch about persecuted.
Yikes! The lawsuite requires CL to be a snitch. Who are these people?
San Francisco Photographers
I visited an ex-collegue of mine who lives in Singapore.
He lives in a very fancy apartment complex over there,
that openly advertizes "Flats available, Caucasians only."
I thought this was a joke, until my friend told me that
this was the norm in Singapore. It is perfectly OK for
employers/landlords etc to discriminiate based on anything
they feel like.
In the middle east, professionals from various parts
of the world are employed. Caucasians routinely earn
10-30 times the salaries earned by other races
for doing the same work. For example, an American
physician would be paid much more than an Indian
one who does the same work.
Are you sure that you would like the US to have
policies that look like this? I know I don't.
Magnus
Actually, you've got it a bit backwards. The exchange of money for cash is legal, what is illegal is solicitation by either party - in other words the exchange is legal but the advertising or negotiations leading up to it are illegal. It's also illegal to profit from such an exchange as a third party (i.e. pimping) and it's illegal to be in or own/run a brothel (defined as a place where more than one prostitutes work).
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
You might waste your time applying. You might even have to pay a fee and get a credit check, which will be ignored.
You're lucky though. What if the discrimination involved something less obvious than race?
Suppose the landlord sees you with fish stickers on your car, and chooses you because he likes Christians. Later, after you have moved in, he discovers that you are Catholic. He's one of those protestants that think the Pope might be the anti-Christ.
You're so screwed, even if the landlord tries to be tolarant. In everything, he will assume the worst. Consider trying to get back a damage deposit.
How about people being reasonable? Is it reasonable to discriminate publically? We are not talking about private citizen being discriminatory or property owners being discriminatory in private. We are talking about discriminatory against the public.
No, we are not talking about discrimination whatsoever. This law does nothing to stop discrimination. It says that newspapers can be sued for printing certain ads. Printing those ads are not discrimination... they are simply printing text verbatum that people submited.
And also, it is far more important for the Government to be reasonable than ordinary people. Ordinary people don't have military, police, or vast global unchecked power that the government does. The government is far more prone to abuse than any ordinary citizen.
If the cost is the reason to ignore discriminiation, then slavery is more than reasonable by any standard.
Once again - Printing an ad != discrimination. Craigslist does not discriminate in any way! The people renting the houses are discriminating. Should we punish the contracters who built the building if a landlord discriminates? What about the utilities that service the discriminating landlord?
For any business, costs of compliance is high regardless due to regulations and license.
And this itself is a form of discrimination far more distructive than some occasional housing discrimination. If you need vast amounts of capital just to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, only rich people will be able to afford to start buisnesses. You have gamed the system against poor people (who are disproportionatly minorities). I have seen the burn out neighborhoods with no buisnesses, even though labor and real estate is cheap, because the cost of regulation is just too expensive for anyone but multi-millionares to even hope to begin starting buisnesses.
The Law that protects the rights of individual and freedom isn't being "extra" constitutional.
We are explicitly garanteed freedom of speech. This was intentionally created to protect newspapers and media from being punished for speech that people might dislike. If you restrict speech in any way, you are violating the first amendment to the constitution.
FYI, Craigslist is backed by a huge corporation with an army of lawyers and millions of dollars.
Exactly. Craigslist will be able to afford this restriction. Any smaller competitors will not. Hence, you have garanteed that only big corporations and the extreme wealthy will be able to run classified ads. So much for eliminating discrimination!
But going even deeper, this law does absolutly nothing to stop discrimination. A person will simply not print anything about discrimination in their ad, and discriminate anyway, and get away with it. The crime of "discrimination" is virtually impossible to prove (because you have to prove someething inside a person's head). Every once in a while a person might make a huge mistake, and there might be a token prosecution, but it is really pretty useless. In fact, this law makes it HARDER to punish people for prosecution, because it make illegal the type of hard evidence you would need to punish people for discrimination.
In 5 years the web will be TV. I don't mean that in the way that there will be lots of full screen video. I mean that all content will be produced by the rich and politically connected who can deal with the immense amount of regulation and restriction, and the average person will be a consumer, and not a participant or producer. The egalitarianism of the internet is going to be destroyed, and it will be brought under corporate control, by the same people who claim to be egalitarian and protecting us from "Evil" corporations.
The FHA specifically exempts people who are going to be sharing living quarters with their renters. If you don't want to share your house with somebody of a given religion, gender, sexual orientation, or color, you don't have to. This guy is propping up an enormous strawman that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Apart from the issue of whether Craigslist can successfully be sued, think about the overarching issue here. It is categorically ILLEGAL for an individual to post an ad on Craigslist that says, "(Male/Female) Roommate Wanted". That is downright scary. Our government allows you to be JAILED for stating a preference for what kind of person you LIVE WITH!
The President can't protect us with regular laws. In order to effectively combat the terrorist threat, he needs war laws!
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I'd say it's a male religeon.
Christianity: turn the other cheek (no, not THAT cheek)
Islam: kill the infidels
Christianity: when you die, you no longer get women. You're just happy to be in the glory of God
Islam: if you die fighting the infidels, you get 50 virgins PLUS your wife. No kidding. I'm not sure how your wife is supposed to feel about this.
And should be santioned money. Lots of it. Keep them out of trouble in the future.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ever since Chairman Mao died, communism has only applied to social stuff. Economic stuff is mostly capitalism. This is why China is such a threat, rising out of poverty but without anything like the 1st ammendment of the U.S. Constitution.
mentioned in the lawsuit, according to craigslist's statement on the suit, included the following phrases, which appear to be not even remotely discriminatory:
"near St Gertrude's church."
"vibrant southwest Hispanic neighborhood offering great classical Mexican culture, restaurants, and businesses"
"Great apartment for graduate students"
"wants one nice quiet person"
This lawsuit stinks of Jesse Jackson-style race-baiting. Is this an election year in Chicago?
Outside of SF it's "owned" by eBay. Still dunno how it makes money (maybe it's not supposed to, nice tax writeoff) but that's where the money comes from anyway.
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
Jesus wasn't a Christian and moreover never said anything about people worshipping him, or even God forbid, forming a church in His name. Yes, the Christian Church is completely un-Biblical. So whenever some Bibliolater tries to tell you something, just ask him where his church is mentioned in the Bible.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
Actually wasn't there just an article about them starting to charge for property rental ads in some markets? I wonder if that helped prompt the case.
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
If you're getting news from Ogrish, I'm thinking you don't have much room to criticize when it comes to "caring".
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
That's because women pick shit up when it falls on the floor, and guys don't (generalization, but of course that's what a landlord is going to get when they advertise -- an average tenant). Ever been in a frat? Ever been in a sorority? I rest my case.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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.
...
There is a long history of laws which regulate "speech" in some way. Freedom of Speech is not and never has been an absolute concept. Even the ACLU would not take that stance.
But you say you want an amendment to the Constitution, and I have one for you. Look it up. 14th Amendment.
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Congress passed the Fair Housing Act to help ensure that citizens of the United States are not denied equal protection of the laws in the sense that they can rent or buy a house anywhere they want and have the full protection of the Federal government in case they encounter discrimination.
If you're getting news from Ogrish, I'm thinking you don't have much room to criticize when it comes to "caring".
I gather evidence from Ogrish BECAUSE I care.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
eBay owns a minority interest (a founder sold his stock to ebay). They do nto control any part of the Craigslist operation.
CL makes money by charging f0r job ads, in the few cities whre there are sufficint job ads to make it worthwhile. Everything else is free.
They are considering (or may have already decided) to start charging a nominal fee for some other categories of ads, mostly to discourge multiple repeat listings for the same apartment, etc.
You are correct.
And to expound on your statement the government doesn't belong in our houses. Not the state, local, and DEFINATELY not the federal government!
Libertas in infinitum
Not quite.
The Constitution does NOT grant the federal government the right to micro-legislate isses such as education and schools within states' boreders.
And about your statement: "...forcing different races, religions, etc. to cohabit..." is NONE of the business of the government at ANY LEVEL, local, state, federal! The government should have no say about who lives with who much less FORCING anyone to cohabit with anyone elese.
Libertas in infinitum
I am a white Southern libertarian and if you were running for office, I would vote for you! ;-)
Libertas in infinitum
SF has a long history of being permissive with the sex trade. Walk west of Van Ness after midnight, especially on the weekends, and you'll think you're in Amsterdam. Law enforcement has taken the unofficial stance "if they're not being violent, let them go." And they go. Boy do they go.
Prostitution is a pretty despicable trade but generally it's the prostitutes who have the worst of it. There's usually someone pulling on their strings, a drug dealer, pimp or whatever, who is smart enough to stay out of jail. Not to mention the public humiliation aspect. And the Creepy Christians who can't stand the sight of anything sexual.
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.
That hasn't stopped them from their modern prohibitionist laws. They found the constitutional process far too inconvenient, so they skipped it next time.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Freedom of Speech is not and never has been an absolute concept.
Except that's exactly what the Constitution says it is. Again, I say, if you don't want the Constitution to mean what it says, then go through the amendment process. The 14th amendment just takes away the right of states to (among other things) abridge the freedom of speech. It doesn't give the federal government the right to abridge anybody's freedom of speech.
Congress might be able to pass a law which forces me to rent to anyone, but Congress can't stop me from saying that I won't rent to party X, Y, or Z. It doesn't have the authority to pass a law which does that.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
To use an extreme example, it's like I'm not allowed to put a bullet through somebody else even if I own the bullet. Other rights trump the property right.
We, as in the western world, have chosen to have this apply to discrimination from businesses. If we want to avoid a close to totally segregated society, this is the only way we know to work - and my personal guess is that the basic tribal psychology of humans makes it the only way that CAN work.
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.