Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Craigslist Fair Housing Act Suit Dismissed

Posted by kdawson on from the common-carrier dept.

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."

7 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Freedom of association is just not that popular by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

      --
      Apology to Ubuntu forum.
    2. Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    3. Re:Freedom of association is just not that popular by NormalVisual · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  2. Re:Discriminatory Language by Dilpo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

  3. Barry Goldwater by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  4. Re:There's always a way around the law. by veganboyjosh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.