Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Denies Safe Harbor for Roommates.com
Mariner writes "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Roommates.com Safe Harbor status under the Communications Decency Act in a lawsuit brought by the Fair Housing Councils of San Fernando Valley and San Diego. Roommates.com was accused of helping landlords discriminate against certain kinds of tenants due to a couple of questions on the Roommates.com registration form: gender and sexual orientation. 'Though it refused to rule on whether Roommates.com actually violated the Fair Housing Act, the Court did find that it lost Section 230 immunity because it required users to enter that information in order to proceed. As Judge Alex Kozinski put it in his opinion, "if it is responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing the information, it becomes a content provider and is not entitled to CDA immunity."'"
You don't have to get all pissy about the "no fags or bitches" part of my flier.
I don't see how a content site that collects confidential information that may be used in a screening process can possibly be considered a common carrier under anyone's definition of the term.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
I don't claim any prior knowledge of roommates.com at all, but... 1. Were these fields optional? I wouldn't expect something like orientation to be a required question. The judge says it is, but I want to hear from somebody who's used the site. 2. Are all people who look at applications considered landlords, or only some of them?
Just because people want to know this information so that they can discriminate, doesn't mean they should be permitted to.
The rule of law - it's not always what you think, but it's something we need.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
We couldn't run an ad that said no Portuguese, but ummm...no Portuguese.
While I kind of find the judge denying safe harbor a bit harsh, I do sort of appreciate the whole "required" versus optional form data. When I fill out forms for this and that on the web, I really get annoyed when every gorram field is required. I understand that the more complete the info, the better able to provide services, but honestly, forcing email or phone on peole is just likely to either a)turn users off from going any further or b)cause users to enter fake info.
:)
I'd much rather have missing fields than false info... it's EASY to parse for missing fields, but false info can really pollute or skew things. I know that on "stop bugging me" registrations for some software, I'll just enter F***@you.com or some other random made up address that expresses my displeasure at being forced to provide such information. To whomever has the email address "F***@you.com" I apologize for the extra spam I've caused you to receive from the likes of Real Networks, Apple, and others.
The Digital Sorceress
Whenever you see ads in the paper for folks looking for roommates, you always see several things:
Female looking for female.
Male looking for female or male roommate
Gay man looking for roommate,
etc...
What's wrong with entering that information so you can be matched up with someone that you'll be compatible with?
If you were unknowingly matched up with a gay man, and you're a devout Evangelical Christian, boy, there's going to be some rough patches! The same goes with women who would feel really uncomfortable with rooming with a guy.
Geeze! Sometimes the law isn't realistic.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Since the site's purpose is clearly to find roommates and not tenants, you should have more latitude in what kind of questions you can ask. When you accept a roommate, you do much more than engage in landlord/tenant relationship. Finding a roommate is a process of creating a household. And anyone should be able to choose what kind of household they live in.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
So when some redneck moron finds out he's staying with a gay guy because roommates.com had to change things to continue to be protected by Section 230 and he therefore didn't know, and inevitably kicks the everliving shit out of him, does that mean Roommates.com is also responsible for the shit-kicking?
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Wait. The COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT? The act that was supposed to keep the kiddies away from Intarweb pr0n?
Wasn't that struck down, like, in the 1990s?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
If I'm looking for a roommate, why shouldn't I be able to filter for gender and sexual orientation? For that matter, maybe I'm a racist jerk and don't want black or asian roommates. Isn't that my right, regardless of how silly it might seem to someone else?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The B.C. Residential Tenancy Act allows for three sorts of discrimination: age, when it's a property specifically for older folks. Disability, when it's a property specifically for disabled folks. And just about anything else (particularly gender and sexual orientation) when there are shared kitchens and bathrooms involved.
Little else matters. If you can pay the rent (and come by the money lawfully), they can't turn you down.
...laura
If you want to make a fake email without worrying about anyone ever receiving email because of it, RFC 2606 defines reserved domain names. Thinking about all the emails that have bounced after being sent to blowme@example.com just warms my heart.
The fair housing act doesn't always apply, there are times when it is legal to discriminate based on gender etc. http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/yourrights. cfm
There is an exemption for owner occupied buildings (i.e. you want to rent out that extra bedroom in your house). Also if you are just looking for a roommate, you are not the landlord so it would similarly not apply, in fact I would think this would be protected under the 1st amendment as freedom of association.
I think it's a good ruling. The safe harbor protects groups who clearly have no hand in what information is collected or how it is used. Since this website appears to have a hand in that (at least by gathering potentially discriminatory information), they need to demonstrate that they're using it in a manner consistent with the law. That is best done by letting the case go to the next stage. Note that the court hasn't said that there's anything illegal going on, just that the site doesn't get a free pass out of the court proceedings.
You don't have to live with a tenant.
It has always been standard that for arranging things like roommates, dates, marriages, etc, that being able to not only select the gender and sexual orientation of the other party or parties is normal. It's not even considered discrimination. Remember, this is for a roommate arrangement (very personal). It is not for a landlord/tenant relation (strictly business).
I would also suggest that selecting a roommate, date, or lifelong partner based on their religious belief (or lack thereof) is equally personal and not considered discrimination. Maybe ... just maybe ... race might be going too far for roommates (but not for dates and marriages).
And we do not need any such law; never did; never will.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You know there will be a lawsuit along that vein.
The other thing is, I know a few rednecks and a few gay guys. The gay guys, at least the ones I know, spend all their time in the gym, eating right, and living a healthy lifestyle.
The rednecks, on the other hand, smoke, eat fatty salty crap, and the only exercise they get is curling 12oz cans of Bud.
My bet is on the gay guy in a fight.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
As regards violating the Fair Housing Act, there is a shared living exception. It seems to me that if roommates.com added a "shared living" checkbox to its form, it could AJAX-open the additional fields regarding gender and sexuality, and thus avoid falling afoul of the FHA. Roommates.com would still not be covered by the Section 230 exception of the Communications Decency Act, but it wouldn't need it.
How on earth is it Roommates.com's fault is LANDLORDS are abusing the system to discriminate? Be like looking someon up on Myspace, and denying them a job because of some pictures put up. Is it Myspace.com's fault?
I hope they are atleast suing the landlords that were abusing this info. Thats the problem with information on the net, its accessible to everyone, weather they should have it or not. I understand nailing landlords to the cross for abusing this info, but I totaly fail to understand how this is the websites fault for supplying the information. Its even submitted by the people themselves...its not like it wasn't wanted to be known..
Why? As a straight man, I'd be more comfortable in general living with a lesbian than a straight woman I didn't want to get involved with.
This seems like perfectly decent information to ask. Personally, I would like to know the gender and sexual orientation of my roommate before I go into an apartment deal with them. I don't think it is the site's fault that people are abusing the information. Yes, they required the information. However, if you don't want to give it, then don't sign up!
The fair housing groups are going after landlords not people looking for roommates. Craigslist was sued because it allowed ads from landlords specifying gender and religion.
Except for the forms that recognize those reserved domains and prevent you from entering addresses under them.
I used to use fake addresses on sites that required them before allowing you to download their otherwise free software. Then I came across one that bothered to do some test (probably a DNS lookup) and it rejected garibaldi(a)babylon5.earthforce.mil (for example) as an invalid domain.
Now when I use a fake address, it is at domains that not only allow you to do it, but also allow you to retrieve mail sent to them in reply. It's great for those sites that e-mail you an expiring link to access what you came to get.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
> I don't see how a content site that collects confidential information that may be used in a
> screening process can possibly be considered a common carrier under anyone's definition of the term.
You are correct... as far as that reasoning goes. But the CORRECT ruling (yea, good luck getting a sane ruling in CA) would have been to toss the case on the grounds that neither the "Fair Housing Act" nor the CDA pass Constituitional muster. The CDA fails on 1st and 10th Amendment grounds and the FHA on 10th. So it should have been tossed back into state courts.
Listen up pinheads, people have the right to be wrong. At least 'wrong' from your point of view. Since Stallman already has claimed Freedom Zero call this one Freedom -1. For if you claim the right to tell someone they are wrong and must agree with you, you are asserting yourself as their master. And the odds approach 100% that sooner or later everyone else is going to think one of your cherished beliefs/practices is 'wrong' and impose their will on you. And having given up the principles of Freedom you will have no moral argument to offer as to why you should be left in peace.
Tolerence isn't allowing people you agree with to do things you approve of, it is permitting people you don't like to do things you disapprove of so long as they don't use force or fraud against others. Yes that means yo have to tolerate the intolerant sometimes.
Democrat delenda est
"If you were unknowingly matched up with a gay man, and you're a devout Evangelical Christian..."
You reveal your bigotry. No religion endorses homosexuality.
Removing someone from their home should be an extremely difficult task, regardless of the reason.
So since retirement communities are typically not lived in by the landlords (assuming a rental not purchase model) does this mean that they can no longer discriminate against younger people wanting to move there? Or is there an exemption for that too? If so then how is it OK for older people to decide to not want live with younger people but not vice versa?
This does seem pretty ridiculous, and clearly not very many people get in trouble for placing such ads, but there is some case law supporting it. In the roommates.com case, since they not only encouraged placing such statements, but seemingly also more-or-less required it, they were exposing themselves to liability. Plus, since they have much deeper pockets than your typical "SWF seeks same", they were much more likely to be taken to court.
The same reason will be used to deny YouTube safe harbor under the DMCA.
Fixed that for you.
The courts didn't say that people can't request 'long haired freaks need not apply' as a roommate. The website would lose protections similar to a common carrier status (like your isp doesn't get into trouble if you look at illegal content) if it makes it easier to discriminate. So freeform text by the 'landlord' isn't illegal, but if the website forces people to answer 'long-haired', 'short-haired', or 'I'm Picard!' instead of letting the landlord handle it, it's no longer a common-carrier.
The real ones are generally a let down.
Although some of them can fix your truck for you when it breaks down.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"To whomever has the email address "F***@you.com" I " Hehehe! I do the same thing when I post email that is caustic and requires email to go through. So, taking a hint from you, I apologize to user@email.com...
the significance of a signature is insignificant
They're renting it.
I just don't see how asking for gender or orientation invalidates anything and somehow makes them responsible for whatever gets posted by the members of the forum. It seems like a wrong decision to me and should be pursued further.
You have a supremacist belief and you impose it on everyone through government force you theocrat. That's what "sucks".
Seastead this.
They don't have safe haven protections because they are involved in shaping the content. That doesn't necessarily mean the content is actually illegal, just that the case can go forth.
"WANTED: Female roomate. NO FATTIES."
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Idiot.
Seastead this.
So you're not allowed to discriminate because you're a landlord?
... and you just have to hand over the keys?
... things like that seem to cancel out justice over the pond).
Some guy comes to look around with needle marks up his arm and swastikas tattooed on his forehead. He says he's not going to pay any rent just rip out the carpets, steal your white goods and leave a dump in the porch
You Americans have some weird laws.
---
Or a more realistic one: The landlord is black and the tenant is a white separatist.
Or: The landlord has previously targeted poor families that have a problem finding accommodation; and offered higher quality accommodation than they would normally receive. Now they have to let anyone in including the time-served "rehabilitated" paedophile and his friend that got off a charge of selling narcotics to minors on a technicality (let say the officer sneezed reading the Miranda rights
Sad.
Ok, it seems to me that the question everyone is asking is simple: should x person be allowed to choose their roomate with a gender filter, and to this, most people seem to say yes.
Then, from the looks of it, the counter-argument is that landlords could use this to discriminate.
Color me purple, but aren't we talking about a site named Roommates.com? As in, find a roommate. Not as in find an empty appartment, but find an appartment where someone else is already there and they want a roommate?
So then here's my next question: If the site was strictly for existing renters looking for someone else to live with them, would this even be an issue? If landlords were locked out of the site (the means for which we'll just say is divine intervention or such, knowing you couldn't really lock them out) and the only people using it were people who want a roomate, and people who would like to be a roommate, then would this case exist?
I don't think it would. I think this case exists because a really stupid landlord (or greedy or desperate or whatever adjective you'd prefer) decided he'd go troll a web site which is made for renters and see if he could grab a few leads. The point is the site is Roommates.com, not appartments.com or landlords.com or even realestate.com. The site is specifically named for roommates, and legal issues aside, common sense would dictate that only roommates would be using it.
We still have problem tenants, they're just under a different landlord. Shifting a problem does not solve it. NIMBYism is never a good social policy.
I think the problem here is the definition of "force". In a very real way, discriminating landlords are "forcing" potential tenants to live somewhere else. I don't think of it as much different from making black people sit at the back of the bus. (Yes, there might be a difference between public-run buses and private housing, but I'm pretty sure a private bus company couldn't get away with telling black people to sit at the back of their buses, either.)
Furthermore, housing discrimination affects not just the denied tenant, but, on a larger scale, the housing market and opportunities for many other tenants.
So I would actually mostly agree with your statement there, but instead of "force or fraud", I'd say people can do what I disapprove of as long as it doesn't AFFECT others. Yes, that's rather broad, but there are many cases where I think people should be able to do what I disapprove of even if they do affect me. They simply no longer get a blanket pardon once they do.
"it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of someone's gender and sexual preference"
As someone else said, in most cases sexual preference is not protected, so you're wrong.
Adjust your opinion to address your ignorance and get back to us when you know WTF you are talking about.
t's getting a little esoteric at this point, but technically marital status would not be covered under "familial status" since that refers to whether or not an applicant has or wants children.
I wonder how so-called "Adult Communities" get away with this, especially where there are rentals.
Personally I think they're mis-guided freaks, but should be able to do what they want with their property. Ah, well.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Well, the wonderful thing is that I am not part of YOUR legal system.
Actually, under Pax Americana, you are. We frequently invade countries just because we don't like the way you dot your i's.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"April's inflation rate jumped up from the 2,200% recorded last month, the Central Statistical Office (CSO) said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6665749.stm
One might be forgiven for suspecting that the retards are those who show patience and restraint toward those who create situations like Zimbabwe in the name of their "beliefs". Of course, one might be forgiven only if one hadn't committed the unpardonable sin of thinking that race might really matter or that intimately mixing human ecologies with Africans running the show is a really really bad way to live life.
Seastead this.
It's illegal to refuse tenancy to anyone except for a few very specific reasons, and it's illegal to assist anyone else in breaking the law.
Your reasoning would make illegal anything which could be used in an illegal manner.
religion (r-lj'n) pronunciation
n.
1.
1.1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1.2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Seastead this.