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."'"

4 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Look, I just wanted a normal male roommate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't have to get all pissy about the "no fags or bitches" part of my flier.

  2. Re:I don't know what the problem is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you were unknowingly matched up with a gay man, and you're a devout Evangelical Christian

    I smell sitcom!

  3. Not at all an appropriate decision by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > 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
    1. Re:Not at all an appropriate decision by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative

      You might think that is how it should be, but legally you don't have the right to deny people a job for any reason or choose to rent or sell for any reason you please - a long range of reasons are illegal discrimination whether you like it or not.