Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Fair Housing Act Suit Dismissed
tigersaw writes, "A federal judge in Chicago has dismissed the suit against Craigslist brought by the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which accused the site of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968 by not actively filtering out housing advertisements that include discriminatory language. Craigslist cited their community-based flagging system as an already effective means of limiting such posts. However, the court held that the site was nonetheless protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields Web forums from liability for ads and opinions posted by their users."
Anybody's got an URL to a non-registration site?
My work here is dung.
Anyone have a link that dorsn't require registration to view?
I sure would like to have seen the court rule on their assertion that their community-based flagging system provided protection.
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
You mean to say there's a law that actually protects websites and their ability to post whatever they desire? Maybe laws aren't just for lawyers after all.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
However, the court held that the site was nonetheless protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA), which shields Web forums from liability for ads and opinions posted by their users.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. And Congress is certainly full of both, so it makes sense that they'd put two and two together on this one.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I understand the ideals behind the legislation, but let's think about this one for a second. Sure, people shouldn't be stopped due to arbitrary standards like race or gender from renting anywhere they want, but forcing a bigot to do it is not a good idea. Think about this one for a second, really well before responding. Does it make sense to order an adherent of white power or black panther ideology to rent to those they **hate**? Forcing people to do stuff like that has never worked well since the beginning of time.
But then, freedom of association is not valued by most Americans even though it is arguably one of the top few most precious natural rights a human being has and the most frequently violated by authoritarian states. I'm not even surprised, though, as many of the types who make support of the Civil Rights act almost like a religious mantra also tend to be the sort of people who support speech codes and free speech zones on college campuses.
Fucking pathetic that these sorts of people are allowed to be called "liberal" when in reality all they are is authoritarian.
http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006/11/16/crai gslist_lawsuit_dissed_dismissed.php
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
now that people know that they cannot kill ./ inappropriate postings, will the replies go up in quality?
If I'm posting a room-mate wanted advertisement, I am going to include discriminatory language such as "no druggies, slobs, or people without jobs." I don't care if it's legal to do so or some civil rights lawyers or activists have a problem with that. I'm supposed to waste so much of my time meeting people that, by default, I don't want to have as room-mates? I don't think so.
In Konqueror, it asks me for registration; in Firefox it allows me in...
Don't want to rent to black/spanish/white folks, someone with a black/spanish/wasp sounding name calls, tell them the apartment was just rented, or, when they come, just make the place look like shit or play really LOUD MUSIC.
I'm sure we all can think of ways to do it. But my point is try, just try and prove they're acting in a discriminating manner. If someone really doesn't want you there, they'll figure out a way. And yes, I agree with you, my life would be quite miserable in that situation so I'd rather they just say, "I don't want (insert group here) living here."
Now, I guess maybe laws are needed if it was really endemic throughout an area - like 1960s and earlier. But these says, I have never witnessed racism in the workplace (27 years in workdforce) or with housing. I am not saying it doesn't exist, I am just saying it's rare. And if someone is that much of a bigot, let him wallow around and miss out on opportunities because of it: his loss. There are plenty of other opportunites for folks these days.
In 1964 Barry Goldwater took heat because, as a libertarian, he didn't support the Civil Rights Act because he believed that the public accomadation clauses since they violate the 1st amendments rights of freedom of association.
Goldwater understood the ideals too, but stood up for freedom even when it isn't popular.
The ideal was so good and tantalizing that people either ignored the fact they were violating this right or rationalized the problem away.
We all do something like that. And I hope the people who complain about the Patriot Act but support public accommadation keep this in mind. If you are against the Patriot Act, are you against security? Maybe. Maybe not.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Liberal: A power-worshipper without power.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
But the moron who included that in an add may not be.
Now people have the right to have opinions I find horrid, they do have that right. But they do not have the right to discriminate with housing. On paper.
They could show the room to let to several people, choice one that configures with their "beliefs" and call the others with the statement that an earlier viewer decided to rent, and has secured a deposit. Easy. Clean. And hard to sue.
Personally, I am guilty to the treatment above. I "HATE" idiots. Pure stupidity and I do not mix (Idiots, not dyslexics. We cool.). So when I rent a room, I conduct a small interview, both via e-mail and durring a personal tour. If I like the cut of their jib, I rent them the room. If not, I wait until I find one I do like, then rent to the following party.
So, if you hate hippies, the same method works as well. Or any other group.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
When you put a Craigslist ad up, add the following to it:
DISCLAIMER: Responding to this ad is not a binding contract to deliver housing. Respondents are subject to be denied housing based on arbitrary issues of incompatibility with current tenants. Void where prohibited. Contact current tenant for details.
While it may be a bit overly "liberal," understand that it's a reaction to a period of time in which people of certain races were not allowed to rent outside of their own area. You quote "bigots" and sounding like some angry redneck type that puts on white masks and burn crosses, but what happens when some quiet, friendly landlord just decides that he'd rather not have those those "other people" renting out his rooms? What happens when a lot of landlords like that do it together unconsciously? Moreover, it's almost certainly going to be directed more at people who own the property that are looking for tenants more than people who are looking for a roommate and such - it's one thing to say that a white guy likely wouldn't want to share a flat with a black panther, but it's another to say that an apartment complex landlord refuses to rent to people of a certain race.
If you have a room to share, and a guy shows up at your apartment to look at the place, and he makes you uncomfortable because of his race / religion / etc., tell him that there are other people who have already been looking at the apartment, and if he calls back later, tell him that you found another roommate. Simple enough. If some bigot, though, is denying any sort of service, including housing space, to certain people, then yes, they should be forced into doing so. That's "We don't serve your kind here," and that's not good from any shape or form. Freedom of association only goes so far - just because a person has freedom of religion doesn't mean they're necessarily allowed to harass people who work at abortion clinics, either.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
I did not know that. I appreciate the info.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I wouldn't want to live next to a nigger either. Take a look at how they run Africa if you need an example of why. Nigger intelligence and culture are just not up to par. FUCK BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT. FACE THE FACTS!
...is whether using Windows counts as a handicap?
Windows luzers need not apply.
or is your opinion based on a hypothetical thought experiment, rather than one based on the real world as populated by real human beings?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.housing.html A group of lawyers is suing craigslist over a handful of allegedly discriminatory housing ads posted by our users, ignoring the fact that craigslist is not a publisher, but rather a community-moderated commons run by and for its users, who self-publish and manage their own ads and use a flagging system to police the site. These lawyers demand that we impose ill-conceived, mistake-prone, and potentially illegal controls on the craigslist community, which if adopted would actually reduce fair housing opportunity, while eroding important free speech and privacy rights. In reality, the craigslist community already excels at ensuring equal opportunity housing, and continues to improve in this regard, earning praise from fair housing groups. This lawsuit will likely be dismissed as groundless, but more importantly the craigslist community will be recognized for its exemplary record in promoting fair housing for all, while fully respecting each person's constitutional right to free speech and free association.
...let me guess... the NAACP (Now Apes Are Called People/National Association for the Advancement of Communist Philosophy) initated this bogus lawsuit against a productive enterprise. That is so very typical of niggers. All they ever do is destroy and take.
I wouldn't want to live with a black person either. I have nothing in common with them, and I had to live with one in a dorm, and it was one hell of an experience that I will never do again.
No asshole Uzbekis need apply.
Apparently it's not illegal to discriminate on gender when it's a business though... It always amazes me that "Curves" gyms can advertise both on their signs and on TV that the are a gym for "women only".
I share your disdain for "idiots" and ignorance/intolerance in general. However, there are provisions such as "Mrs. Murphy's Exemption" which allow for legal discrimination under certain circumstances.
I rent out rooms in my house in a college town and I was not allowed to post an ad in the local paper stating that I was seeking a grad student or professional roomate, ie no undergrads. Instead I had to answer many phone calls from 20 year old party people that would be very out of place living with a bunch of physics grad students.
I ran an ad on craigslist that fully stated that and no one bothered me, no complainers or undergrads. Apparently on the racist part bothers the users, but the fact that I cannot legally state any preferences on who I want in MY home makes me a little angry. The fair housing act needs to differentiate between roomate ads and renting a vacant dwelling. Letting someone live in your home is not that same as letting some one rent out an entire house/appartment.
Stewie: "We couldn't run an ad that said 'No Portuguese' but, um..... no Portuguese."
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
If you read the FHA Sec 803b states "Nothing in section 804 of this title (other than subsection (c)) shall apply to-- rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his residence."
Well, if you are renting a single room in a house, you fall under that blanket and thus none of the non-discrimination language applies to you. Basically the law is such that if you are renting a place you live in, you can discriminate. This applies not only to rooms, but also to something like a guest house. As you ca see, the cutoff is 4 family units. Any more than that, it applies. Also this is only applicable if you actually live there. If you don't, it also applies.
Over all, it's a fair law. If you own a large apartment complex, you can't discriminate. If you are renting a spare room, you can.
racism != discrimination
Welcome to beautiful Malibu, California. Perfect for white people! with good jobs!
Man, you really need that seminar!
That's pretty much what I've heard the outcome was of forced integration arrangements that would force people living in wealthier suburban areas -- where they presumably live because of the good public schools -- to send their children to underfunded (possibly more dangerous) urban schools. It puts a lot of pressure on parents who have the ability, to find somewhere else to school their children, using whatever means are available.
All you do is trade "racial" inequality for socioeconomic inequality. Those that can get their kids out of integration arrangements do so -- and who can blame them? They're doing what is best for their children, using the resources they have available.
I lived in a community that experimented with forced busing for a while, (IIRC -- this was a while ago) using a lottery system. At the beginning of the year there was a sort of lottery, and some students were chosen to be bused to a more "urban" school. Basically what happened, was if your child's name came up on that list, the parents would immediately attempt to use connections / pull strings to get them put back, and failing that, the families that could afford to, pulled their kids out to private, parochial, or home-schools. The only suburban kids who ever ended up going to urban schools, were the ones whose families didn't have connections to avoid being put on the list, and couldn't afford any alternative education, or just didn't care or weren't involved. No parent in their right mind would let their kid get sent there if they had any alternative. So what happened? You ended up with racial 'diversity' on paper, but it was still the poorer kids that ended up at the crappy school. They real losers in the arrangement were basically working-class suburban families, who couldn't afford private schools. There was no "justice" there; it was all a farce.
I don't know how long that system lasted (didn't live there that long) but at least as I heard about it, it was an unmitigated disaster. You're not going to get true equality in education, because people have vastly unequal resources to expend on their children. All you can do is try to establish a minimum; people that can afford to do better, are always going to do so.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
and in market regulation. You err, as do many free-market Libertarians, in presuming that money is the only form of payment extant or requirable.
Furthermore, I would argue — on principle only, as any knowledgeable lawyer could rip my argument to shreds from the case law — that in the case of an incorporated entity, since corporations require a state charter, they may be justly forbidden from actions that would be unlawful for the state itself. Thus in the case of rentals, any instance where the owner has incorporated to limit liability (and protect his own house) or makes use of an incorporated property management agency, such regulation is reasonable under the Commerce Clause and 14th Amendments. (I might even have a hope of such position under case law, since incorporation is usually done for financial benefit, and it was held in Norwood v. Harrison that "A State may not grant the type of tangible financial aid here involved if that aid has a significant tendency to facilitate, reinforce, and support private discrimination.")
I admit, this leaves a separate question of the extent that the nonenumerated right of association (derived from the right of Freedom of Speech) may be limited by regulation under the commerce clause, to address descrimination by private unincorporated renters. I'll leave addressing that to someone who actually has a clue what the hell they're talking about. =)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Part of the issue that led to antidiscriminatory acts is that it used to be that within deeds and purchase agreements there would be clauses stating that the buyer would never allow a "non-caucasian" to buy or rent the home/piece of land/etc. So, it was not only a matter of landlords dictating to their tenants, but requirement to be a home owner and was almost impossible to strip from the deed.
Plus laws help insitutionalize ideas about society - part of the reason people believe (mostly) that it's bad to discriminate is that that it's illegal (and therefore bad).
http://www.bu.edu/econ/ied/dp/papers/dp145-Lang- Manove.pdf (while the model indicates that it may actually improve corporate profits, it will be a net loss for the economy)
Boycott Sony
No where in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution is Congress granted permission to regulate the housing market.
i on.articlei.html#section8
Take a look here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
Libertas in infinitum
...look at all the racists coming out of the woodwork for this article. Or is it just one guy posting as AC over and over?
Geeky math jewelry!
Whether or not that ad is actually legal depends on your jurisdiction. "Undergrads", are not a protected class under federal law, but the Fair Housing Act allows localities to add more protected classes. "Student Status" is added by some localities, so in your jurisdiction, it may actually be illegal to discriminate against students in your ad copy. If "Student Status" is not a protected class, then the newspaper was just being a dick to you.
On the flip side, since this is a roommate situation, you are exempted from most sections of the Fair Housing Act.
IANAL, but I am a Landlord.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Check the fair housing laws in your locality! Some places have a list of protected classes a mile long (DC and Massachusetts, that means you) and you don't want to run afoul of fair housing. Expensive mistake.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Anyhow, "criminals", are not a protected class in any jurisdiction I am aware of. I have tenants of all different backgrounds, colors, races, whatever. But there is not a snowball's chance in hell I'd rent to your buddy. The last thing I need is violence in one of my buildings, and this guy clearly is a violence magnet. He's a member of a minimum of two protected classes, and I could and would legally reject him. I'd be professional about it, but ..yeah.. no way.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock