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

[HoboMaster]

"absolutely ideal for a young professional and socialite!"

The fact that we live in a world that can construe that as racist makes me angry.

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.

Re:Terms of Use

[tompaulco]

A landlord cannot advertise that the apartment is near a church or synagogue because this implies an illegal preference based on religion.
False. A Landlord cannot advertise that the apartment is near a church or synagague because because some big city lawyer will sue them for illegal preference based on religion, when in fact, they just may want their potential tenants to know what is nearby, so that they won't be falsely representing the surroundings of the property.
The Mexican restaurant isn't a big problem, but saying the neighborhood is Hispanic implies that anyone else is not welcome.
False. It implies that the potential renter should be aware that the neighborhood is hispanic in case the renter would or would not like to live in such a neighborhood.
"Godly, Christian Male" expresses both a religious and a gender preference; but it's fine to require cleanliness.
As a landlord myself, I don't make such distinctions, but I believe that a small mom and pop landlord business should be able to rent or not rent to whomever they want. It's their house, if they want to limit their target audience by insisting on a Godly Christian Male, then they should be allowed to do so.
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.
We have houses that we happily market as being a poor choice for families. We also limit the number of people that can live in each of our houses, based on square footage, number of bedrooms, and other factors. Some houses are not well suited to families, and no one should be forced by law to take a tenant that won't be comfortable in the house.
Some of the postings on craigslist seem to be slightly discriminatory. Most of them I find to be just attempting to let the tenant know about the neighborhood. While I am aware that it is illegal to discriminate based on neighborhood racial makeup, I don't believe it should be my job as a landlord to enforce the potential tenant not being a racist, so I am happy to tell them the demographics if they ask and if I know them.

Freedom of association is just not that popular

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[Anonymous Coward]

When the bigot chooses to engage in commerce, he loses some of his rights to associate with whom he pleases.

If he wants to let other bigots live in his places for free, no prob. They can do what they want (and I hope they all die in a fire.)

But if he wants to engage in commerce and earn a profit, he does so with society's help in terms of market regulation and authority to enforce contracts. Engage in commerce? I say all of us should be able to compete on a level playing field.

In short, keep your bigoted acts private and you're fine. Air them in public and fuck you.

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[muellerr1]

It sounds like you're saying that liberals support free speech zones and 'speech codes' (whatever those are)--but in the last 8 years, who was the party in power who created the free speech zones for the liberals to protest from? I agree that some liberals are authoritarian, just like some conservatives are. But liberals are the backbone of the ACLU, protecting your free speech everywhere.

But to address the main point of your post, yes, it is a good idea. Most bigots are functioning bigots anyway, meaning that they will happily take anyone's money for rent. They may even learn a degree of tolerance or even respect. Moreover, once you start allowing that kind of segregation, you end up with sections of town for the blacks, Jews and other minorities. This was the case as recently as the 1970s in some areas, but since that sort of thing has been regulated by Federal law, people are allowed to live anywhere they want. Do you really want to return to segregation?

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[pgaffney]

I and all others have a right to an economy that as much as possible allows anyone to participate on equal terms irregardless of each of our own racial, religious and sexual identity. Necessary to this is that you don't allow people to publish commercial speech that specifically excludes a person on the basis of that person's group membership.
Free association is important, but we need to make sure our economy respects all human beings.
Filthy, thieving robots need not apply.

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it freedom of association or commerce? Once you advertise in public (in this case in cyberspace, which is public) for a paid service, it's no longer association. It's commerce, which can and should be regulated. If you want to avoid renting to certain types of people you hate, then you can find the person you want to rent to IN PERSON. It's in the interest of society to have commerce which does not discriminate based on factors like race.

By the way, freedom of speech isn't about having the right to say whatever you want without facing consequences. It's the right to say what you want without being arrested. Is it authoritarian that you might get fired if you call your boss an asshole to his face? No, it's a matter of common sense and good manners. Same idea with speech on campus. And doesn't a university have the freedom to discontinue association with unrepentant bigots? And don't they have a mission to teach certain community values?

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[UbuntuDupe]

Fucking pathetic that these sorts of people are allowed to be called "liberal" when in reality all they are is authoritarian.

And ironic that their namesake, Craig, is himself what people would describe as a "liberal" and is being targeted by the very people that he in other contexts would support. This is a man who would go to hell and back to avoid discriminating against others, and one who runs his business at unbelievably thin profit margins in order to pursue other goas with the service. And what is his thanks? He gets sued on grounds of discrimination, ignoring all the oppressed groups he's helped find housing. Brilliant!

"A conservative is a liberal who's tried to run a business."

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[NormalVisual]

I vote that the white supremacist not get to rent out his housing at all.

Or, put another way, "I vote that those whose views I find reprehensible be denied those civil rights that I believe appropriate, such as the right to use their property as they see fit or the right to engage in business."

Freedom also means having to put up with those you disagree with or dislike. I don't like racism either, but you combat that with education and encouragement of critical thinking, not with misguided laws that overstep the bounds of what the government is allowed to do. In the end, you're still going to end up with some people that are going to be prejudiced no matter what, and when you come across people like that it's best to just learn to deal with it.

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[malsdavis]

I wholeheartedly agree. Freedom of association is one of the most important rights on the same level as freedom of speech (which it is very much inter-tangled with).

It's ironic how strikingly authoritarian some civil rights legislation can be. If bigots want to be bigoted then people have to accept that and if they disagree with it then they should not associate with them. Forcing them to change their views is itself a very bigoted approach.

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[NormalVisual]

But if he wants to engage in commerce and earn a profit, he does so with society's help in terms of market regulation and authority to enforce contracts.

And he pays for society's help in the form of taxes.

In short, keep your bigoted acts private and you're fine. Air them in public and fuck you.

Tolerance is a two-way street. You're always free not to associate with those you disagree with. It's remarkable how so many of those who scream the loudest about "tolerance" are unwilling to actually practice it.

Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular

[cpt kangarooski]

No, it has nothing to do with their views. Someone can be as bigoted as they like, they can hate me merely for the color of my skin, or my religion, or whatever. I don't care, and I'll defend their right to hold and even espouse those beliefs, even though I find them vile.

But engaging in business activities is a highly regulable area. Polluters don't have a right to pollute that trumps environmental laws. Restaurants don't have a right to be unsanitary that trumps health laws. And businesses open to the public generally don't have a right to discriminate that trumps antidiscriminatory commercial regulations. They can still want to, and can still believe in it, they just can't actually do it.

Even setting aside the strong governmental policy in eliminating discrimination for its own sake as an evil in the world, discriminatory practices are economically inefficient and harm the economy. While you might argue that the market will eventually correct for this on its own (despite some evidence to the contrary), the government is hardly required to sit back and wait for the market; it can take an active role, and this is certainly one area in which it ought to. It might not be perfect, but it's resulted in things being a hell of a lot better than they were. I sure don't see you offering any better solutions given the panoply of measures (not just commercial regulation) that the government uses to discourage and/or eliminate discrimination in various fields.

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/

There's always a way around the law.

[Jawood]

Here's an example - background and drug checks. I'm not going to go into the reasons, but black folks as a percentage of population are incarcerated more than the general population, many because of (quite minor) drug related offenses. Don't want black folks working for you, have a stringent background check and drug testing. You'll get rid of more (as a percentage) black candidates than white.

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.

Re:There's always a way around the law.

[elrous0]

Overt discrimination is rare these days, even in the U.S. deep South. Discrimination has become MUCH more sophisticated than anything as crude as "Whites Only" signs. To effectively segregate your schools, for example, you only need gerrymander your school districts so all the white, middle class, and wealthier neighborhoods are in one school district and all the inner-city, poor, and predominately black neighborhoods are in another.

-Eric

Re:There's always a way around the law.

[veganboyjosh]

i dunno which south you're talking about, but the one i lived in had private schools for the whites, and public schools for the blacks.

i was involved in a higher education program while i was there, and part of my job included taking our students (mostly high school dropouts, all of them were black, in this case) to get their library cards at the public library. some had never set foot in the library. or knew they could check out books for free. one time, i was showing a group of students the newspaper archive for our town of about 400 people. they got into looking up the history of the homecoming court, for whatever reason. going back to 1965, the entire court was black. in 1964, 100% white. what happened that made it all switch? the academies(private schools) came along and the white kids suddenly had their own schools back.

when was i there? 2001.

yeah, there are some districts--think the ones with money--who try to integrate, and some who have done ahalf decent job. but the segregation is still so ingrained and institutionalized that it'll be around for many more years to come.

Re:There's always a way around the law.

[UbuntuDupe]

Good point. A lot of people don't realize that a major (if not primary) driver of urban sprawl and high real estate prices is people using more roundabout means to keep their kids from having to go to school with the riff-raff (which doesn't necessarily mean minority, but usually does). This leads to a zero sum game where people pay more to be in the best school districts, not merely "good ones".

In my opinion, most everyone would be better off if they just accepted that rich people are going to find some way to get their kids into more exclusive schools, and instead focused on increasing school choice (rather than having the school district lock-in) so that this struggle doesn't have the collateral damage of the environment, transportation congestion, and difficulty buying a home.

Barry Goldwater

[geoffrobinson]

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.

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.

Obligatory Family Guy Quote:

[Gadgetfreak]

Stewie: "We couldn't run an ad that said 'No Portuguese' but, um..... no Portuguese."