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.
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_
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.
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.
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
I've always wondered what's the point of these laws? I agree it is offensive to see a "NO MINORITIES" ad...
;-)
Would you feel the same about a "NO MINORS" ad (err, "disclaimer")?
Paul B.
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
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.
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?
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.
You are wrong. Citizens have a responsibility to disobey corrupt laws. If we can learn anything from the late Dr. Martin Luther King, it is that. Civil disobedience against onerous "laws" is our duty as free men and women. Uncle Sam needs to stay out of our bedrooms in every way. Government interference with individual choices is intrusive, onerous, and beyond the pale. Just because some corrupt officials can push through a "law" does not make it "a right".
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.
But, it is the start of the story. If the CDA was the end, then you would not have had CARAFANO v. MetroSplash 339 F.3d 1119. Which held that a matchmaking service was protected. This cited Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) which said that the Ebay's customer ratings were protected under the CDA.
Fight Spammers!
Of the two culprits, myRedbook is more grossly egregious in facilitating prostitution. For example, myRedbook offers reviews of prostitutes, including those who work at the Mitchell Brother's O'Farrell Theater (located at 895 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, California). Law enforcement makes no attempt, whatsoever, to stop this illegal activity.
Perhaps, the "Internet Age" means "I-do-whatever-I-want Age". Just last week, Reporters without Borders discovered that Yahoo! has been enthusiastically helping the Beijing government to arrest and imprison reporters.
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
For a real lawyer's opinion on this matter, go here.
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.
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."
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
Well, I happen to be a white guy and for a few years had a girlfriend who was African. Probably the least bigoted person I've ever met. But, I remember when she asked me to call about an apartment for rent, and the African-American woman that answered the phone immediately demanded, "Are you white?" I said yes, and she said flatly, "Your girlfriend will have to call for herself. We don't talk to white people" and hung up on me.
Discrimination is not a unilateral phenomenon. It's perpetuated on all sides.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"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."
On top of that, a lot of the prostitutes discriminate by race as well.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x
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
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
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.
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