Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Sued For Violating Fair Housing Laws
The Good Reverend writes "The Associated Press has a report today about online classified site CraigsList being accused in a federal lawsuit of violating fair housing laws by publishing discriminatory classified ads. Current law, which applies to newspapers, prohibits ads that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, family status, religion, all of which can be found on Craigslist."
I 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)
There is nothing wrong withd discriminating when choosing a roommate. Some people naturally feel more comfortable living with the same sex. Some people are more comfortable living with people their own age.
They listed:
race, gender, family status, religion
Race - although there is no good reason to discriminate based on this, some cultures have attitudes that create conflicts.
Gender - some people (maybe most) are more comfortable being roommates with the same sex.
Family Status - If I'm a college student, I don't want to be living with a single mother with a baby. That's not the housing situation you want to be in. People live very different lives and some people in some situations just don't fit together.
Religion - If I'm a christian, I probably don't want a large atheist symbol decorated around the house.
You see, in situations where it doesn't matter, discrimination is bad. In the case of living situations where roommates must get along, it's a necessity.
You can't stop the discrimination anyway. Everyone has their preferences. Whether they screen in their post or after someone calls, people will still get screened, so the attempt is largely ineffective anyway.
A lot of people on craigslist are looking for roommates. That is something more than just renting some random piece of property to a random person. Most people looking for roommates may have in mind somebody of an age-range, ethnicity, religion, or sex that is compatible with them. People ought to be able to select roommates on whatever criteria they feel is appropiate.
Suppose people feel intimidated and stop posting their preferences in the ads. They're still going to have their preference though they might not tell you. For example, suppose you are a girl, and the person is looking for a male roommate. Then you'll end up showing to see a property that the owner is not really prepared to rent out to you, wasting your time and wasting their time. I don't think anybody really wants that.
And like the sign in the garage that says 'we are not responsible for anything' it has no effect. The point of those disclaimers is that they discourage the ignorant from filing suit, not that they have legal effect. If you can proved that you suffered a loss as a result of negligence on the part of the garage then you can sue, the right to sue for negligence cannot be surrendered under contract law.
I don't think that the arguments being advanced by the Internet legal experts are the right ones for craigslist to use. They are the ones that those lawyers would like craigslist to use but that does not make them the ones most likely to win this particular case.
There is plenty of case law that has upheld the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws such as the fair housing act. Congress did not intend to give online companies a pass on those acts and intentionally facilitate discrimination.
If craigslist did win that way it would be a shortlived victory. Congress would clarify its intentions soon enough.
The best defense for craigslist is to do what they are doing and saying that they have taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that discriminatory ads are not published and that these precautions are effective.
Saying 'not our problem' is the worst thing they could do. Courts do not like people telling them that the law does not apply to them.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
True. Slashdot also has a fine print: "The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."
Oh by the way, I have an apartment for rent, only one requirement: Clean Godly Christian Male.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
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.
Oh by the way, I have an apartment for rent, only one requirement: Clean Godly Christian Male.
I have just the tenant for you...
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.
Not sure if he's specifically thinking of this act, but the Communications Decency Act will almost certainly protect them. The Ninth Circuit already came down in a very similar case (Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.Com, LLC., 33 Media L. Rep. 1636 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2005)) that the online ads were protected. While this certainly isn't binding on the present case, it is persuasive, and there are various other rulings that suggest the CDA is a very broad and powerful statute.
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.
On top of that, a lot of the prostitutes discriminate by race as well.
Like this comment? I accept Bitcoin! - 153sc8UUBXyp12ofQqfAWDmJrzyiKCYC1x