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."

Comments

Terms of Use

[eldavojohn]

I will cite the craigslist Terms of Use Section Three:

3. CONTENT

You understand that all postings, messages, text, files, images, photos,
video, sounds, or other materials ("Content") posted on, transmitted
through, or linked from the Service, are the sole responsibility of the
person from whom such Content originated. More specifically, you are
entirely responsible for each individual item ("Item") of Content that you
post, email or otherwise make available via the Service. You understand that
craigslist does not control, and is not responsible for Content made available
through the Service, and that by using the Service, you may be exposed to
Content that is offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise
objectionable. Furthermore, the craigslist site and Content available through
the Service may contain links to other websites, which are completely
independent of craigslist. craigslist makes no representation or warranty as
to the accuracy, completeness or authenticity of the information contained
in any such site. Your linking to any other webites is at your own risk.
You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the
use of any Content, that you may not rely on said Content, and that under no
circumstances will craigslist be liable in any way for any Content or for
any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content
posted, emailed or otherwise made available via the Service. You acknowledge
that craigslist does not pre-screen or approve Content, but that craigslist
shall have the right (but not the obligation) in its sole discretion to
refuse, delete or move any Content that is available via the Service, for
violating the letter or spirit of the TOU or for any other reason.

Section Seven goes on to describe acceptable CONDUCT. So, the part about everything being posted is the responsibility should keep craigslist from any liabilities. Slashdot has the similar disclaimer:

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Which appears on (to my knowledge) every page they serve with user created posts. I think it would protect craigslist to do the same and add that sort of legal speak to their

Stating a discriminatory preference in a housing post is illegal - please flag discriminatory posts as "prohibited"

disclaimer on every page. I'm not sure if that message has always been there but it is now.

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually -
    Discriminatory housing posts are legal (As the property owner) if the poster will be sharing the same building/structure of IIRC 4 units or less with the renter.

    Additionally -
          There is nothing discriminatory about seeking housing (as the renter) 'with' a particular group. Self limitation is never actionable, or restricted.

Posted as AC because there are idiot racists, and other idiots who love to scream racist.

Re:Terms of Use

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who brought this suit certainly know this. They lawyers that represetn them certainly know this. They also know all about the CDA. The thing is - they just don't care. They're overzealous and would really like a slice of the CL pie, especially after the big investment from Google. They were hoping for a tech-ignorant judge or jury. Its a matter of chance they didn't get one which would have ordered 10 million dollars to all these people, violate basic free speech protectiosn, etc all for the sake of protectign people from anonymous online "racicts" who may or may not be real. Why aren't they suing the racists directly? Because theres little to no money there.

How "civil rights" and moneymaking go hand-in-hand in America is unforgivable. This is one of the many reasons I think the tort reform people are thinking in the right direction. And this is coming from a born and bred Chicago liberal. As much as I would like to support Jesse Jackson, after reading about his similiar tactics I just can't. Either there's social justice or there's shady moneymaking. You can't have both and retain integrity. The ACLU understands this.

I've lived in Chicago and have run various small business in Chicago. (thus posting anon) The amount of abuse in the civil court system over civil rights issues, mostly discrimination and sexual harrassment is appauling. There's no shortage of people out to lie to make a quick buck and no shortage of shady lawyers willing to take 40% of that quick buck.

Btw here are some of the ads.

# At least on September 6, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "All in a vibrant southwest Hispanic neighborhood offering great classical Mexican culture, restaurants and businesses."
# At least on July 13, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Requirements: Clean Godly Christian Male."
# At least on September 1, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Owner lives on the first floor, so tenant must be respectful of the situation, preferrably not 2 guys in their mid twenties who throw parties all the time."
# At least on September 1, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Walk to shopping, restaurants, coffee shops, synagogue."
# At least on September 23, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "The entire building is filled with interesting and fun people. Mostly Loyola Students. . . . . Church immediately across from building."
# At least on September 23, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Accesible to transportation, church ST Margareth."
# At least on October 25, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Catholic Church, and beautiful Buddhist Temple within one block."
# At least on October 25, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Walk to shopping, restaurants, coffee shops, synagogue."
# At least on July 20, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "Perfect for 4 Med students."
# At least on July 21, 2005, Defendant's website published a rental advertisement containing the statement "absolutely ideal for a young professional and socialite!"
# At least on July 25, 2005, Defendant's website published a sublet advertisement containing the statement "Apartment is situated on 8th floor of building teeming with young people. It is unfurnished but ideal for a student or young single professional.",

You can't say if its near a church or a synagogue or a mexican restaurant. Err, ok.

Re:Terms of Use

[msslc3]

I am a fair housing attorney. Before anyone goes ballistic, I should explain that I only defend fair housing cases. I have been handling this type of case for over 20 years and have never represented a plaintiff. I defend these cases because they are a challenge to win and the consequences of defeat are absolutely horrendous, both financially and emotionally. I have never lost a fair housing case. I am a lawyer, not a magician. I keep my clients from defeat by promptly settling cases they cannot possibly win.

Stating an illegal preference is clearly illegal under the Fair Housing Act. The law does not only condemn racial discrimination. Federal fair housing law protects all but a very short list of persons:

1. Current users of illegal drugs. Property owners can refuse to rent based on that use. 42 U.S.C. 3602(h).

2. Transvestites, who are not considered to be handicapped. Act of Sept. 13, 1988, P.L. 100-430, 6(b)(3), 102 Stat. 1622.

3. Persons who pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others or who would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(9).

4. Illegal ("undocumented") aliens. The Fair Housing Act does not prevent discrimination based on citizenship status. Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mutual Association 522 F.Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981). See "Response to concerns about housing security following September 11, 2001." http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/sept11.cfm /

Under federal law, discrimination is illegal when it is based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. 3604. In California, it is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, source of income or medical condition. California Government Code 12955(a) and 12926. California Civil Code 51-51.3. California also prohibits "arbitrary" discrimination. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV, 52 Cal. 3d 1142 (1991). (I realize that the craigslist case was brought in Illinois, but I am not licensed to practice law there.)

Since everyone has a gender, everyone is protected from sex-based discrimination. Similarly, everyone is either in a family or not, has a race or color and a national origin, and either has or does not have a religion. "Handicap" or disability is a very broad category. The law also protects people from discrimination because they associate with a person in a protected category or because they are incorrectly perceived to be in a protected category. For practical purposes, just about everyone is covered by the Fair Housing Act.

A landlord cannot advertise that the apartment is near a church or synagogue because this implies an illegal preference based on religion. The Mexican restaurant isn't a big problem, but saying the neighborhood is Hispanic implies that anyone else is not welcome. "Godly, Christian Male" expresses both a religious and a gender preference; but it's fine to require cleanliness. The ad about "2 guys in their mid-twenties who throw parties all the time" is illegal based on a gender preference; but the landlord could ask for people who don't throw parties. The last four ads may sound fine, but they imply that a family with children would not be welcome.

Renting residential property is a business, and property owners and managers are held to a strict standard of compliance with fair housing laws. Amateurs who do not bother to learn the rules are likely to get bitten by them. I have written a number of fair housing articles which are available at http://www.msslc.com/ I believe that the federal judge who dismissed the craigslist case acted correctly. While the statements made were illegal under the Fair Housing Act, craigslist should not be liable under the CDA. I doubt this decision will be appealed, and if it is I confidently predict it will be upheld.

non-reg link

[AlHunt]

http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006/11/16/crai gslist_lawsuit_dissed_dismissed.php

Re:Discriminatory Language

[Dilpo]

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability) So go ahead and discriminate against druggies slobs and people without jobs all you want. Discrimination isn't illegal unless its based on what is mentioned above. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/

Re:Discriminatory Language

[autocracy]

My understanding is that the fair housing law doesn't apply if they're living in the same unit as you.

They may be safe;

[Upaut]

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.

Re:They may be safe;

[jareds]

You are incorrect. It is legal to express a gender preference if a common room, such as a bathroom or kitchen, is shared, which is the case for almost all roommate situations.

Re:"Please register or log in"

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. The story link from the CNET site doesn't require registration. Anyways, here it is. And here's the full text, if they pull it down..

Judge: Craigslist not liable for ad content
By Mike Hughlett
Tribune staff reporter

November 16, 2006

The popular Craigslist Web site is not legally liable for allegedly discriminatory housing ads posted by its users, a federal judge in Chicago ruled in a case pitting landmark Internet and fair housing laws against each other.

The decision was a victory for online civil liberties supporters. It was a setback for housing civil rights advocates, though they still found some hope in the judge's ruling.

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law sued San Francisco-based Craigslist in February, claiming that during a six-month period, the site published more than 100 housing ads in Chicago that violated the federal Fair Housing Act.

Those ads included such declarations as "Non-women of Color NEED NOT APPLY" and "African Americans and Arabians tend to clash with me so that won't work out."

The 1968 Fair Housing Act bars housing discrimination, and newspapers and other publishers of ads deemed discriminatory can be held liable for violating the law.

But the 1996 Communications Decency Act, in an attempt to promote unfettered free expression online, shields Web forums from liability for ads and opinions posted by their users.



Internet giants back Craigslist

That's what Craigslist argued in its defense in the Chicago case, and it was joined in friend-of-the-court filings by such Internet giants as Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Yahoo and AOL.

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee has a heavyweight ally, too, though not through a formal court briefing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has said the ban on discriminatory ads applies to Web postings like those on Craigslist.

The battle boils down to the definition of a publisher.

The decency act says that a provider of an "interactive computer service" can't be treated as a publisher of information it gets from others.

Craigslist is indeed an interactive computer service, a conduit of information provided by others, Judge Amy St. Eve said in a written opinion that effectively dismisses the case.

Thus, under the 1996 communications law, Craigslist can't be treated as a publisher, she wrote in the decision, which was filed Tuesday and then circulated Wednesday by attorneys involved in the case.

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee plans to appeal St. Eve's ruling, or to ask the judge to reconsider her decision.

In a statement, Craigslist said St. Eve's decision is "a win for the general public's ability to self-publish content such as free classified ads on the Internet." Craigslist noted, too, that it has "industry leading standards" in policing its site for offensive ads.

Internet law experts weren't surprised by St. Eve's decision, because judges have usually ruled in favor of Web forums like Craigslist, citing the decency act's broad protection.

"It's very clear under these precedents that Craigslist shouldn't be held liable for ads provided by third parties," said Kurt Opsahl, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a technology and civil liberties group. The organization filed a friend-of-the-court briefing on behalf of Craigslist.



Not a total victory

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee took solace in parts of St. Eve's opinion.

Craigslist argued that the decency act grants it immunity from any sort of lawsuit stemming from its users' postings. Web outfits like Craigslist have commonly made such claims of "unlimited" immunity--and judges have usually agreed.